User talk:Wassermann~enwiki
Categories on Roubini
Since I had removed a few of the categories which you restored, I'll throw in a few cents of rationale.
There seems to be a lot of overlapping and contradictory catagories used. For example: People from Istanbul; Turkish Jews; Persian Jews; Iranian Americans; Turkish Americans; and, Israeli-Americans. The article says he was born in Turkey and moved back to Iran with his parents soon after. He had a year of undergrad studies in Israel. So it seems that categorizing him as a Turkish Jew, Iranian American, or even Israeli American, is making the categories less meaningful.
The same could be said of his category in Jewish American writers, and American economics writers. Since he only wrote one book and is not noted for being widely published, outside of his website and newsletters, it seems again to degrade the category system by calling him a "writer." As for his being an alumni or faculty member, the numerous categories include schools where he only went or taught for a limited time. There are other categories which seem redundant to the point of looking like filler.
All in all, I feel that overlapping, redundant, or loosely-defined categories should be avoided, especially when religion is involved, as it may undermine the category system. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Categories can never be "filler" because they are the organizational backbone of Wikipedia, and as long as a category is factual it belongs in an article to help organize the chaos of this encyclopedia. None of the categories I reinserted overlap or contradict each other, and they are all valid. Roubini is all of those things listed in the categories I just reinserted. Therefore, the categories belong in the article. --Wassermann (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Astrologers
I you want to add Category:German astrologers to an article, especially to bios of medieval scholars, you need to provide a good reference. -- Matthead Discuß 00:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar, etc.
Hey there. I'm more than a little embarassed that I'm only now leaving you a note to thank you for that Barnstar. Compared to my normal level, I've done very little editing over the last few weeks (due to R/L stuff) -- so the Barnstar really caught me by surprise, and I wasn't quite sure what had prompted it since I wasn't exactly feeling like a "Tireless Contributor". :) I puzzled over what to say for a couple of days, but then a freak hail storm blew through (I'm in a rural area) and knocked out our power for a few hours, which always causes me to lose track of all the stuff I'm dealing with on Wiki. Well, as luck would have it, I finally got around to looking back through some recent CFDs last night to see how they had turned out. I was really glad to spot a few of your comments, since I haven't seen your name around there lately. And of course it also reminded me that I hadn't ever replied. So thanks for the salute -- much appreciated. And after looking at your recent talk page archive, I think I understand why (in light of your recent travails). (Feel free to drop me an email if you like.) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- That barnstar was very well-deserved and long overdue on my part. I am constantly impressed by your extensive (and of course tireless!) work with the categories here on Wikipedia -- thus a barnstar is the least someone could give you to show that your hard work and true commitment to a NPOV is much appreciated and valued here. Keep up the good work! --Wassermann (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
You're invited...
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You are being discussed
at WP:WQA Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikiquette alert
Please visit Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Wassermann.
Undelete
Can you help tell me how we undelete the deletion of the category of Jewish economists? I didn't even get a chance to blink, or input my thoughts. I think the discussion was uninformed as it missed that the Jews are a nation, not just a religion, etc.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, not sure if that is possible. However, I would suggest the creation of Category:Jewish American economists instead (as well as other "Jewish economists by nationality" categories). If you haven't noticed yet, there is a currently a major censorship campaign raging on Wikipedia wherein rabid censors are attempting to hijack the CfD boards and unjustly delete as many Jewish related categories as they possibly can. Let us be vigilant against their 'book burnings' and let us also attempt to save as much of this valid info as we possibly can before it is wantonly tossed in to the censorious flames. --Wassermann (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Tx. It's certainly an odd obsession, the felt need to delete those categories. I don't mind a thoughtful discussion, but when experienced editors start quoting half a sentence, and leave out a pertinent part, it does make one strain not to raise an eyebrow. Pls let me know if there are other attempts of this sort, as I believe they are wrong-headed. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:ANI
You are being discussed at WP:ANI. Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Unfortunately, accusing others of being part of some crazy conspiracy makes you look bad and may lead to negative consequences. If you feel that deleting these categories is unjustified provide cogent, logical reasons why they should be kept. Triplestop (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, please understand that you can not put someone in the Jewish category unless you can cite a source to show that each particular person added is Jewish. This is along the lines of putting Category:Muslims on Obama. Would you like it if you were incorrectly classified as Jewish, or any other race/religion for that matter? This why it is important to have sources, especially for living people. Triplestop (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not recreate pages and categories that were validly deleted previously, as you did with Category:Jewish American economists. If you continue to do this, you can be blocked from editing. – Quadell (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Level-headedness at WP:CFD and elsewhere
I remember the first time that an article I created was nominated for deletion, and I went ballistic. How could they? In retrospect, it was a pretty poor article, but I know how attached an editor can be even to articles or categories he didn't create. One of my first contacts with WP:CFD was for a category about burials at a Bronx cemetery. I was able to show sources for all of the burials and articles in The New York Times and elsewhere about the connection between the individuals and the cemetery. All I saw in response was a lot of hand waving and contortions claiming that I didn't know the difference between notability (the well-defined standard for articles that can be satisfied by sources) and definingness (the undefined and arbitrary standard for categories). While I don't think that there is an anti-Jewish conspiracy at CfD, there are lots of problems there. I have provided sources to show that dozens of categories are defining only to be outvoted and seen the categories deleted, despite strong arguments for retention. What you've seen for the recent spate of Jewish-related categories is a symptom of the groupthink that prevails at CfD. This arbitrary process can be seen at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_9#Category:Fictional_Jews, where a well-sourced argument to overturn and recreate a category deleted by a borderline CfD has resulted in most CfD insiders voting to endorse the result, while every single outsider supports the recreation of the category and sees it as defining. Your work at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_7#Category:Jewish_surnames to provide nearly a dozen sources showing the Jewish-connection of these surnames as defining was masterful, and the response that your sources can be ignored because of this undefined trait of definingness is typical of the "we know better, you know nothing" approach that often prevails. People whose clear logical views are rejected often get angry, and that anger can turn into actions that result in blocks and ultimately bans. It sometimes seems that a strategy is used to trigger arguments that can be used at WP:ANI reports to get users blocked. Don't fall into that trap. When your blood starts to boil, take a deep breath and use the power of your arguments based on sources and Wikipedia policy to help make the changes you want to see happen take effect. Don't allow yourself to be bullied or intimidated or pushed into a corner and lashing out, all of which accomplishes nothing. CfD needs greater participation from the community as a whole so that the consensus reached there can start to be representative of the views of the community as a whole. Use the power of your persuasive arguments to help make these changes. Feel free to reach me on my talk page or via email if you want to discuss this further. As you say on your user page about CfD, "CHECK AND COMMENT UPON THESE MUCH MORE OFTEN" and do so in productive fashion. Alansohn (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wassermann, I want you to be aware of a forceful statement I made on User:Epeefleche's page here, in which I put on my administrator hat and advised him to stop painting User:Otto4711 as an anti-Semite. You allege a much vaster conspiracy which didn't specifically target Otto, but I'm concerned about your tone as well. I have commented as such on your ANI discussion. Alansohn, an editor who has leveled rather different negative charges at me and others on CfD, nonetheless is giving you some very good advice in the latter part of his discussion above. If you attack the editor, you also destroy any chance of your argument succeeding. And if you do it by implying an unwarranted and specifically racist conspiracy against certain types of content, you won't have the chance to comment in the future. I hope I'm being clear.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for not commenting sooner, but I just don't have the time to get too embroiled in all this Wiki-drama/Wiki-bureacracy. But thank you all very much for your kind suggestions, and I'll do my best to keep a cooler head from now on at the CfD boards. I'm just trying to save as much of this valid/factual data from being wiped out as I possibly can, and it often makes me angry that some people seek to completely delete/censor all of this factual data despite its accuracy, relevance, and encyclopedic worthiness. If all of this valid/factual info was good enough for the famous and highly accurate Jewish Encyclopedia of yore, why is it not welcome on Wikipedia (which is supposed to be an open repository for ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE)? --Wassermann (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wassermann, I too would appreciate it if you could tone down your CfD comments. Deletion of a category is not the equivalent of "censorship", and your repeated claims of the existence of some sort of conspiracy to censor information makes you look kind of loopy, to be frank. Incidently, Wikipedia is not an open repository for "all human knowledge"—I think you're thinking of Google's stated goal. Here at Wikipedia we are just an encyclopedia, and we routinely delete information that a consensus of editors deem to be "not worthy" for WP or not appropriate for an encyclopedia: "unencyclopedic", as they say. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for Surnames by Country
The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
July 2009
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Blueboy96 13:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)You're invited...
|
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikis Take Manhattan
|
|
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.
LAST YEAR'S EVENT
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
- Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
- Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)
WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.
WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.
WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!
REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.
WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:
- 148 Lafayette Street
- between Grand & Howard Streets
FOR UPDATES
Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.
Thanks,
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)