User talk:Slrubenstein/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Slrubenstein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi! I have noted my substantial agreement with the issues raised on the other page - thanks for calling my attention to it. Also my opinion oin WP "failing."

On T:F the issue (as always) is how to treat the dang "political spectrum" the last sections are the current bit for contention -- where the issue is now whether the starting sentence should be what is in the section, or be what they want the section to turn into <g>. Two editors seem h-bent that Fascism should be described solely as "extreme right wing" and want to use the OED as proof (this was discussed at RS/N but the OED was not favoured there). My problem is that dozens of major authors including Schlesinger (who is not RS because he wrote a "polemic" it seems to some) all have a problem with placing Fascism on the dang linear scale. Cheers! `Collect (talk)

Just read Rootology on the Talk page -- and the essay on why WP needs drastic changes <g>. my imaginations or is this a version of "Six Solutions in Search of a Problem" at times? Collect (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nupedia doesn't exist it stopped existing in 2003, I agree with your comments, and don't like to see this little flaw make your otherwise sound arguments look bad. The other wikipedias are Citizendium and Conservapedia.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please Please do not distance yourself from the ancient egypt issue. Its about time someone stood up to dbachman and his henchman and said something about the abuse going on on wiki take a look at this. Dougweller posted this about good faith under a noninvolved user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Statement_by_User:Dougweller. yet he also posted this [[1]] About Panhesy comment on some one elses page. Is that asumming good faith? The truth is User:Dougweller have left many comments about other users edits to User:Dbachmann and most of it is relates to black people and Egypt. Just like during the time Dbachman decided to remove most of the information on this page Black_(hieroglyphic_'km')with no explanations and changed the name. Starting with this edit on June 10, 2009 4 other edit followed one on top of the other all with no explanations and because of it, an edit war erupted. he went and left Dbachman this message asking him to make your reverts for you because you didn’t want to violate 3RR [[2]]. These people are not even half of the people how have been blocked wrongfully by these gang of administrators. And this article is only one of many. I took a look at Dougweller's block logs and just recently he blocked this editor User_talk:Bottracker on false accusations all because another editor User:Polly asked him to do so when he left this message on his talk page claiming there were issues concerning the editors images and that he did not want the editor to be able to upload images again [[3]] he left a message telling Polly that you have given the editor a warning because you have to (I guess it was a way for it to appear proper) {[4]]. And in a few minute after that warning he blocked the editor indefinitely from ever editing on Wikipedia based on nothing other than a request to do so. don't someone have to violate a warning in order for them to be blocked. This is similar to what they did to me last year I complained about him on Admin notice boards for some strange reason every complaint was removed my on of his "friends". Its quite shameful that someone can just leaves a message on their friends page and their friend do their dirty work for them and hide under the fact that he or she is an administrator. The administrator abuse on Wikipedia by Dbachman and his “friends” and the cry of afrocentricism for every thing have gone one long enough something needs to be done. 129.10.104.104 (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Note 3 is not what anyone here would call a sign of bad faith. Note 4 is not in reference to me. I do care about the general issue of racism at Wikipedia. But you have to understand that other things can cause conflict. Your methods for dealing with conflict have not been effective. I would be happy to explain it to you, but I am not sure you will understand. I am not patronizing you. But wikipedia, like e-mail and telephone calls - like all communication between strangers and non face-to-face, inevitably creates misunderstandings. It is not clear from what you wrote that you understand this, or know how to distinguish between different kinds of misunderstandings. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"This is similar to what they did to me last year I complained about him on Admin notice boards for some strange reason every complaint was removed my on of his "friends"." Please provide me with an actual edit diff, thank you. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had many problems with Dbachman but he is not a racist and no one is going to make him go away. Therefore, there will be progress at Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy when banned users agree to mediation with Dbachman and others, and find a mediator that all find acceptable. If you wish to help your friends who have edited that article, then encourage them to seek mediation with dbachman and others. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Must be DNS problems or else my virus checker. I seem to be able to use the net now easily. Anyway, here is a sample diff [5], which also removed the 'retired' template. I'd already warned him about the copyright violations - his response was just to delete the warning. I could have blocked him just on the basis of the harassment of course. All he would have had to do to get unblocked was to apologise for the harassment and start discussing the copyright violations, but instead he just attacked everyone, another administrator declined to unblock him and in the end, because of his abuse, someone else blocked him from his talk page. He can still get unblocked however, an indefinite block is just that, indefinite. It can last minutes, days or years, but it is not a permanent block. Polly is not a friend, but it isn't unusual for editors who are not administrators to ask administrators for help. As for Panhesy, I seem to have misunderstood him and I've explained that on his talk page and mine. The hieroglyphic thing has very little to do with DBachmann, it was mainly to do with my uncertainty about it and asking an Egyptologist friend of mine, not a regular Wikipedia editor and not an administrator , Katherine Griffis Greenberg, to look at it. As someone who marched with Martin Luther King and who has blocked quite a few racists (and let me be clear, I mean 'whites' attacking 'blacks' and bigots attacking Jews) I strongly object to any suggestion that I am racist. I've got a long record elsewhere on the net, particularly Usenet, which can be searched to confirm this.

Damn, having a hard time again with the net. One other point. I only edit under my own name. Thus my actions are transparent. Whoever you are, 129.10.104.104, you can find out all about my Wikipedia activities, while I can't find out anything about yours. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein no note 4 is not in reference to you I meant to write he. Dougweller nice comment about Martin Luther king, but what does it have to do with anything. I never called you or anyone else a rasict. I just stated that these blocks and removal of information and refferences usaully occur with articles concerning egypt and black people and thats the truth. No one is making this about racism this is about abuse of power. Also why are you using this fake excuse, when Slrubenstein asked, you said that the User:Bottracker harassed User:Daisy1213 Yet it was the other way around. When you look at their conversation history bottracker sent daisy a Welcome tag then later sent her this [[6]] telling her that she was putting wrong information on the page but User:Daisy1213 responded with this person attack[[7]] and if you read the conversation between them daisy1213 kept on provoking him.

Right here, you make two basic mistakes. And if you and Bottracker continue to make these mistakes, and fail to recognize them as mistakes, do not look to me for help. First mistake: you are simply wrong to say that Daisy was personally attacking Bottracker. I read the linked text you provide. She is disagreewith with Bottracker and correcting Bottracker. These two things happen all the time at Wikipedia whcih depends on collaborations among strangers. If you interpret hat she wrote as a pesonal attack, you are simply not capable of interpreting what othe people write in this context. By comparsion, what Bottracker wrote is definitely a personal attack: "you put this shit on my page when I only wrote to you that it was not an ewe traditional cloth. Talk about people not knowing how to talk hypocrite, yes I'm sure that long piece of crap is how you talk to people. Also I don't need to talk to you about anything. Grow the fuck up okay. I do not have time for this bullshit. Stay the Fuck off my page" - as soon as someone starts saying fuck and shit they are being abusive and harassing. Daisy did not speak this way to Bottracker. It is clear to me that Bottracker harassed Daisy and that Daisy did not harass Bottracker.

Second mistake: you think that being provoked justifies angry comments. You know what? Get over it. We are adults here. No one can make you do anything. Take responsibility for your own actions. "Provoke" is just an excuse. Do you feel provoked? Do what i do: turn off the computer. Go for a walk. Take a bath. Listen to the Archies, or the go-Gos, or Curtis Mayfield. In short, relax. Then return to the computer and write what you want to. And do not pretend there is any excuse, some kind of monstor, making your fingers type f*u*c*k. Here is the main point: you (and bottracker) need to decide whether you want to be effective or not. To be effective you have to play by the rules of the game. So start learning the rules. Do not tell me the rules are unfair, unjust. You know what? I don't care. If you come here looking for respect or justice, you have come to the wrong place. You come here to work on encyclopedia articles in a situation where you have no choice but to collaborate with strangers who hold differing views. You got blocked, and Bottracker got blocked, because neither of you learned the rules for editing effectively. You failed. And it is your failure. You are an intelligent adult, you have to take responsibility for yourself. I have seen plenty of people game the system, collaborate with different people, get their content included in articles. you just have to be smart about it but that means leaving your ego at the door and not caring about perceived provocations. You have to answer a simple question: do you want to be effective, or ineffective? If you care more about provocations and justice and telling people to fuck off, then you do not care about being effective, and you know wha, that makes you a a loser and I have no interest in helping losers. You got banned because you are a loser, because you cared more about making a fuss than about winning. Anytime you or Bottracker want to be winners, which means learning how the game is played and playing by the rules, I will be happy to help. But ask yourself this first: do I want to be effective, or not? if you want to learn to be effective you just have to stop caring about a lot of shit. Do you wan to be a winner? Then accept the rules and play by them, even if they are not always fair. This is not about fairness, this is about winning. Until you understand that, you are a loser. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet you claim Bottracker was the one harassing her. If you were able to see the transcript of bottracker losing his temper then you where also able to see that daisy started it with many personal attacks yet, why wasn’t daisy1213 blocked for “harassment” as well. And you say that you would unblock bottracker if he apologized. Well apologize to who and for what? This injustice on Wikipedia is just not right. Yor really didn't valid reason to block this guy. Just like you didn't have one when you blocked me. It is typical that when issue like admin abuse are brought up it gets pushed and twisted up into something else such as racism or afrocentrisim or whatever. People come here because they want to contribute to articles and just because your are given some authority as an administrator does not mean you can do as you please. It is also very ironic that this same daisy1212 you claim Bottracker harassed has left a message on her talk page telling people if they have question or problems with her edits, they should take it up with you User_talk:Daisy1213. I guess you’re her personal bodyguard. Kind of like how User:Polly he left you this message on your talk page tellimg you to block Bottracker and that he did not want the editor to be able to upload images again, [[8]]There are rule everyone must follow My block was even more bizarre and strange. Slrubenstein, Sure thing I will get you the transcripts of when my complaints about them on the notice boards where removed. They blocked me last year so I need time to search for them I am sure they have been archived by now.

129.10.104.131 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That blow up by bottracker was the last thing he left on daisys page after a long back and forth convo. I’ve read the entire conversation between them. And it was daisy that started it saying basically calling bottracker prejudice over one group of people. This is the 1st thing she put on his page “Excuse me please, if you detest putting Ashanti and Ewe in the same sentence at least mentions the different places in the cloth is made. Also please brush up on your history of Kente……etc” [[9]] You said that I do not know how to interpret people words well if you interpret something one way and I interpret it another who is right or wrong. I then guess I can accuse you of the same. You yourself mis-interpreted what I wrote and were quick to defend Dbachman when you thought I said he was a racist. Daisy personally attacked the him link that I sent you daisy randomly told him he detested putting one group of people next to another. He didn’t respond with an insult he just told her that the information she gave was not true and the reference she provided was not source and came form a web blog. Did you read everything between them or are you just standing on just the final thing bottracker wrote? Its funny how racism was mentioned here. What daisy said about him is kind of like calling him a racist in a way. No one said its okay but when people are provoke and fed up they express it. You said daisy was correction him. Yet she was wrong. I never “justified" what he said . I myself am someone who hate vulgarities. All I said was that blow up came from daisy’s attacks. And the links I sent to you were the beginning of the conversation between them. I did what daisy said and she’s wrong I just googled the information. Bottracker was actually correct. (Please do it yourself) it is not the traditional cloth of the people daisy mentioned even though they learned to make it as well. They sctually learned from the other group Bottracker mention. But the funny thing is the article stated all of this. And if daisy would have read it she would have seen that it talks about its origin(the people who created it) and it mentions the other people who makes it. If I came on your page and randomly told you, you detested putting blacks next to whites what am I implying? Yet as its put daisy didn’t do anyting wrong and bottracker just out of mid air went off on her. Dougweller gave another weak excuse in his response to you that bottracker didn’t want to discuss the issues but I didn’t read anywhere Dougweller extended that invitation. Also as an admin he could have sought mediation between them.Since they both did work side by side for a while and contributed to the article greatly. If that block was really based on "harrasement" and not the fact the he was asked to do it by someone else. why didn't he get a warning for this so called "harrasment" don't you have to give a warning and if that person goes aganist the warning then he or she gets blocked. Well atleast bottracker got a tag and "excuses" telling him he was blocked. I never even got a single warning or a blocked tag placed on my page and I must say I am truly shocked of how your response is geared towards me. "If you care more about provocations and justice and telling people to fuck off, then you do not care about being effective, and you know wha, that makes you a a loser and I have no interest in helping losers. You got banned because you are a loser" What?? I got banned because I'm a loser and I care about telling people to F' off. WOW! what about personal attacks. I swear in all my 49 years of living I don't think I've ever told anyone that. You don't even know me and I haven't insulted you or even the people who blocked me in anyway. Yet you call me a loser wow. You also said I made a mistake and I don’t know how to recognize my mistakes. What mistake did I make? Also you said that I didn’t take responsibility for my own actions and that I got blocked because I didn’t follow the rules for editing effectively. What am I not taking responsibility for? What uneffective edits did I make. You do not even know the nature of my block yet. …I just shocked, I guess there are no problems and admin abuse going on wikipedia, Admins are never wrong everything is always justified. You know what it’s perfectly fine I will not “look to you for help”. Have a good day Godspeed!. Greyyschwartz (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion seems to be a waste of time, but you (the IP now editing as Greyyschwartz) wrote (here but to me) " It is also very ironic that this same daisy1212 you claim Bottracker harassed has left a message on her talk page telling people if they have question or problems with her edits, they should take it up with you". This isn't actually what her message says. It says if anyone is unhappy with her edits, tell her on her talk page. If the complainant is still unhappy with her response, then they can take up their dissatisfaction with an Administrator, for example me. So, she's telling people who want to complain about her to contact an administrator. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Grayyschwartz, it is true you never insulted me. But I think you miss my point. I called you a loser. Why? Because you were blocked. That is losing. If the Yankees play the Red Socks and the Yankees lose, they are losers. It is not an insult. It is nothing personal. It is a statement of fact. I am also telling you that you can be a winner. But you have to learn a few things. When Jackie Robinson (I am not picking this example because of race, it is just a great example) first played for the Dodgers, people - fans, the other team, sometimes even his own teammates - scremed the worst things at him. He never lost his cool. He stayed focused on the game. And he won. If the Yankees are in the field and Sx fans are screaming insults at the pitcher and the pitcher screws the pitch, is the pitcher going to complain "I was provoked?" Only an amateur would say that. He's just a lousy pitcher if he can't keep his concentration. This is what I am trying to tell you. I am not being arrogant, i really am trying to help you, but if you do not want to listen to my words, or if you think I am just insulting you, well fine - stay banned. How does it feel? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

At 20:27 I told Bottracker "If you do not agree to stop unloading copyright images and stop making personal attacks, you are going to end up blocked. This can easily be avoided if you agree to abide by our policies and guidelines on copyright and behaviour. ". His reponse, at 21:14, was not to start discussing it but to blank the page - a clear refusal to discuss, particularly when you realise he'd been warned about uploading images, and had just responded to the speedy deletion of some uploaded images by re-uploading them. I blocked him at 21:31 when I discovered his response had been to blank his page. He'd also had a warning that morning just after 8 from someone else saying "lease stop uploading images with incomplete source and/or copyright licensing information. Such images create a lot of cleanup work for other editors, and in a vast majority of cases, they are ultimately deleted. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. " So he had plenty of warnings, plus all the deletion notifications, and his response, more than once, was to blank his page. As for your case, our guidelines make it clear that warnings are not always necessary. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

While I read bottracker talk page he said he received 2 warnings one from you and one from another exactly one minitue apart as weird as it sound this is true. The irony is Polly the user that asked you to block him was the one who sent him the tags . Botracker stated that he added the license but polly removed it he listed them under free files and listed then once he created us his own. But Polly deleted them all as a violation of copy rights including the ones he created how are those a violation. He asked Polly to show him how it was a violation on his talk page because they were either free or him own.. but he never got an anwers . Dougweller how did you know bottrackers images where a “violation” its because Polly told you they were You said you left him this saying "if you do not agree to stop unloading copyright images and stop making personal attacks, you are going to end up blocked. This can easily be avoided if you agree to abide by our policies and guidelines on copyright and behaviour.". His response, at 21:14, was not to start discussing it but to blank the page - a clear refusal to discuss, particularly when you realize he'd been warned about uploading images, and had just responded to the speedy deletion of some uploaded images by re-uploading them." which is which did you invite him to discuss or did you warn him. That was a warning telling him he should stop uploading picture, but he didn't violate this warning. #1 You can not say because he removed your message was "a clear, refusal to discuss" because clearing his talk page does not mean he didn't want to disuss. #2 that was not an offer of discussion it was a warning one that he didn't violate. You claim her re-uploaded the picture yet he didn't uploaded anything on that day, he uploaded all the images the on the 14th and 15th. he got the warning from you to stop uploading on the 16th and in the next hour or so you blocked him without him violation to the warning. The edit history shows that you blocked him as soon as he cleared his page. Its not like it was a week after and he ignored you warning if you blocked him with mintues of him cleating his page who is to say that even though he didn’t seek a discussion maybe he was about to come and talk to you? He also never re-uploaded the same images. So there was no violation there either . This is all in the logs. There was no reason for they guy to be blocked especially indefinately just like there was no reason for these guys on the egypt article to be banned or anyone else. Simply because someone was asked to do it.

Also I did not misrepresent anything. I said the she put on her page that is people have an issue with her edit they should contact you and its true. It is ironic that the person who you claimed was harassed by someone. Yet she was the one that started with personal attacks are telling people to contact and “ Administrator like you if they have problems with her. Here it is User_talk:Daisy1213. Slrubenstein, this is so typical on Wikipedia when something is raised up it gets twisted up and turned into something else thrown out and the same fowl acts continue to be done. This was never about anything other than abuse yet it was diverted to walking with Martin Luther King. Which I guess started with your implication of racism when you misinterpreted my comment. Yet I never accused you of not understanding people or called you a name. Because its not a big deal. I simply clarified it and told you what I meant. However when you claimed I mis-read daisy comment you told me I continue to make mistakes and don’t know how to recognize it. What continuous mistakes was that? The exact same one you made? If the red socks won game against the Yankees then great. If they cheated in the game then its not right You are coming at me with all these things based on one comment I said about someone being provoked.

I am not speaking for this guy. I am just saying what I felt. And its right there daisy accused him of being prejudice over one group of people. When bottracker was correcting her about something. Like I asked you if I came to you randomly telling you detest putting blacks next to whites what am I implying? Your telling me that I'm a loser because its a fact. Bottraker told daisy she was putting nonsense (That fact because daisy was wrong) on the page and daisy said bottracker has insulted her. So I guess I can say you've insulted me too right> That is how their argument started dougweller blocks him based on a request which its right there along side everything else Yet everything is ignored. As an Admin if he really wanted to help with the issue why didn't dougweller seek mediation between them, or extend an invitation to talk to him about any of the issues if his block was really based on the dispute and the the request from polly. On User_talk:Bottracker he said that he was blocked with minutes of recieving the warning dougweller gave him. Another Admin backed him up saying he was blocked with an hour or so. He hadn't even done anything to violate the warning. So how can he be blocked? Same question about mine I never even recieve any information in regards to my block not even a block tag was placed. There was no reason for him to me blocked indefinatly and there was no reason for mine. Yet Bottrackers last comment to daisy and the fact that I used the word provoked is what your standing on making making statements like you’re a loser and you got block because of it and I don’t help losers. Do you know why I got blocked? I have never even hinted any sort of disrespect toward you or dbachman or dougweller because they not type of person I am. In case you didn't know calling someone a loser is rude. You just started coming at me out of no where with these comments and accusations I didn't lose anything wikipedia is not a game. You also said and that I care about telling people to Fuck off and I care about provocations. Is this what I care about? When did I ever tell anyone this or suggest this and your telling me I do not care about being “effective” where are you even coming from. These things are insult and personal attacks and because like I said you don’t me and you don’t even know the nature of my block. which was so bizarre that I didn’t even receive a warning or a block tag on my page (that on itself is a violation of policies). . You told me to stay banned and You asked me to tell you how it feels to be blocked, it feels like nothing.

I came here because I wanted to help and for 3 years I edited and created countless articles and abided by the rules. I never once had an altercation with anyone one. If someone purpose of being on here is to vandalize and to be disruptive they will do it and mere block can’t prevent that they will continue to create new accounts. People were leaving me countless messages on my block account page about links and sources and wanting my help with topics relating to articles. That is why I sought to me unblocked not for anything else. I don’t gain or lose anything being on Wikipedia. You went on to say I made a mistake and I don’t know how to recognize my mistakes. I didn’t take responsibility for my own actions and that I got blocked because I didn’t follow the rules for editing effectively. What am I not taking responsibility for? Please Tell me where I did this things and tell me about ineffective edits did I made.. You could not answer me when I asked you this because you don’t know me or the nature of my block. Its unfortunate that wiki has transformed from the comunity it was to this... Like I said its.. it’s perfectly fine...You have a good day Greyyschwartz (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Greyyschwartz, if you want to engage in a conversation with Doug, please take it to Doug's page. If you ant to have a conversation with me, I am quite willing. But there is a difference between our having a productive conversation and your using my talk page to complain about Wikipedia. I will be honest with you: I am willing to continue a conversation with you, but I do not have the time or energy to read long paragraphs that make many points. I am just not capable of that, and if you continue to write that way I will not be able to respond to you. If you want to break down all your different points and take them one at a time, in very short (a few sentences?) statements, perhaps we can have an effective dialogue. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I did try to have a conversation with you, you replied by telling me you don't help losers. So that is the end of it. I responded to his comment because it was addressed to me, but you do not need to worry. I come here or leave anything else on your talk ever page again. Greyyschwartz (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I offended you. I hink you misunderstood the meaning of what I wrote. I was trying to make an important point but I can understand why the way I was making it offended you, and I regret that. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a courtesy note to inform you that the set of five recent Ancient Egyptian race controversy topic bans by Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) has been raised at arbitration enforcement for review: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ancient Egyptian race controversy ban review. I am informing you because you are an involved party or commented at the arbitration clarification request. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to leave me a talk page message. --Vassyana (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's simple courtesy. :) I would say if you have something further to add or emphasize, that the AE thread where people are invited to review the matter would be best. --Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I've fixed the formatting of the request, it should be more apparent about where to post. --Vassyana (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I have seen your comments on me. Thanks for your impartiality!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My e-mail is [email protected] --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, please take a moment to consider that your comments here and here are completely inappropriate, considering you are long involved with these editors, and are an active participant in this discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I recall your defense, and the extent it was also taken as a deeply incendiary attack on Lar. Whether Lar's comments are an attack, well, are your comments about Jennavecia? If you must be entitled to question her integrity, then I have a hard time believing you think an editor may not question the motives of someone who is initiating this RfC;. The point is ridiculous in any case, as of course you are heavily involved in this very discussion, regardless of prior involvements. Lar's statement on his user page is about undoing administrator actions, not about an involved editor deciding to block him.

If you know how you perceive attacks on someone you respect, you might consider how others respond to perceived attacks on people they respect, and perhaps we could dial this down a bit. Mackan79 (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for amending, appreciated. Mackan79 (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately all of this gets to something almost irreconcilable, as you may know. With the amount of hostility that's been thrown back and forth, you have to wonder how are editors supposed to move past it and act as if it didn't exist? That's the principle of Wikipedia and pseudonymous editing, of course, I'm just not sure that all the answers have entirely been ironed out. It is a shame when it expands from editor to editor, and so on. Mackan79 (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind note. I do have a similar feeling about your posts, frustrating as these wikidialogues can sometimes be. I have friends visiting, anyway, so my wiki time is quite limited but I will check to see if there is anything I can add. Mackan79 (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to fill in some of the blanks there -- please edit fiercely as I wrote on the fly. Collect (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In this, as it gels quite nicely with what you are suggesting. Proposal: use your proposal to generate an initial mandate for the focus group selected by my proposal if it passes. → ROUX ₪ 20:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added this to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You cannot see this ban in the block log because it is a topic ban. That is an administrator has simply declared that the editors cannot edit certain articles on pain of being blocked if they do it. They are however free to edit other articles.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have any options for personal action. The articles on afrocentrism are subject to probation imposed by ArbCom - this means that admins are entitled to topic ban any kind of disruption on the talk pages. The problem is that it seems to have been administered completely selectively by the banning admin. I think the only way is taking it to Arbcom directly (it has already been done i think) and either argue for lifting the ban or for exte ding it to the other side of the dispute as well (dab for example was specifically given restrictions for editing afrocentrist related articles when ArbCom placed the article on probation).·Maunus·ƛ· 22:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, am I allowed to edit the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy article at this point? I sw your suggestion and I do not know the status as there has been no further clarity by the admins on the Clarification page. Is there any way to get a status update? And thanks. --Panehesy (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would advise you not to edit it untill you are absolutely sure that you are no longer topic banned.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you would need to go to ArCom Enforcement and make an appeal. You could also approach the admin who banned you. Either way, I think that mediation is required. You and othe banned editors have to commit yourself to the view that dab and others whose approach to the article you reject are acting in good faith. The find someone from the mediation committee who would be willing to go back and forth and try to hammer out a framework for cooperation. I tried, on the article talk page and elsewhere, to suggest a compromise but my sense is no one accepts it. Unless you have a framework that various editors can work with, it is inevitable that the article will be protected or different editors banned. If you think I am wrong, appeal your ban at AE. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, without an acceptance that DBachmann and others have acted in good faith, I doubt the bans would be lifted, and so far as Panhesy is concerned I'd like to see a withdrawal of the charges of racism. Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I would have no problem - as an admin - unilaterally cancelling Ice Cold Beer's bans ... except for the fact that it would be pointless right now. I beg Panehessy, dab, Zarah 1709, and Big Dynamo (just to name a few) to find a mediator that all would be willing to work with and by work with I mean accept compromises negotiated by the mediator. I believe if these four editors could agre on a mediator, and reach agreement on certain points, most others would follow. But there needs to be some mediation supported by the editors who are considered by others to be most extreme. I do not have the time to act as mediator even if I were asked so I do not feel comfortable lifting the ban. But I urge the people I have just named to find a mediator. And if these four cannot agree on a mediator, there is frankly little reason to think they will e able to agree on bigger or more complicated points in revising the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you were looking for the threads of the ANI topic. They are posted here

• hard link
• ANI archive.

I think Vassyana has offered to act as an informal mediator here. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though all of the banned editors have made their appeal of their bans and there have been responses to the justifications Ice Cold Beer used for his bannings. But my question is how does this issue become officially resolved? Is there someone looking over this situation who will step in and make a unilateral decision one way or the other? AncientObserver (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey. :) No time recently to devote to Wikipedia -- not much patience, either. But I'll try to get around to wading through all that back and forth about the ArbCom excess sometime this week. On another matter, any idea how much time I have left to comment on the wholesale topic ban of Luka, et al.? deeceevoice (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was interested by the recent RFC, and while we are alike in opposing the creation of that far-reaching "advisory council", I found myself unable to sign the statement which you had prepared. Perhaps I misread your intentions, but you seem to be saying that the only worthwhile reason for contributing as an editor is unconditional admiration for Wikipedia, its methods, and the resulting ecosystem of user interaction and user-created edifice. Are you saying that those who feel WP might suffer from systemic flaws should just take a hike, so to speak? Do you feel that those who remain skeptical of Wikipedia will necessarily be a destructive influence, and that full participation is possible only if one is a true believer?

I'm sorry if these are unnecessarily probing questions, but I must say that I found your comments bewildering. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's going to be some time before I have much in the way of a thoughtful response to your last comments, partly because what you said gives rise to new questions which will not seem constructive if presented haphazardly. (And partly because I'm hoping not to spend the weekend on WP.) I'd like to leave with a conceptual question, and ask you not to answer it for now, but perhaps keep it in the back of your mind:

What constructive role can be played on WP by a "non-believer"? I think that this is a question the WP community might need to address, for its own sake. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to keep speaking in metaphors, but I think this one is apt: Suppose you were to live under a representative democracy in which most public officials were elected. Suppose further that you have fundamental misgivings about the political system itself, corrupt officials, or misguided political parties. Assuming this political system is widely adhered to, and shows no signs of being overthrown, is abstaining from participation an appropriate response? Is it effective for any purpose other than conservation of effort? Can it be constructive in any way at all?

Put another way: suppose you disagree with the international system of banking and finance. Can you simply boycott banks and stop using money? Hardly.

I guess what I am getting at is that there is a sense in which Wikipedia is the only game in town, and it's getting to be a very big-league game, indeed – I think that very little can be achieved by simply refusing to play ball.

Frustratingly, this presents arguments both for and against increased administrative hierarchy and centralized control, a growing tension which I think was manifest in the recent creation of ACPD and surrounding furor. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

SLR, I think that your own views on Wikipedia are more extensive and carefully considered than my own. However I do think that I have given the wrong impression about my own views. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that I am a "skeptic of" than a "non-believer in" Wikipedia's methods. I guess what I am saying is that I thoroughly dislike the mess. I can understand your inclination to tell me, because of that, perhaps I am in the wrong place. However, I would disagree, and I also think that by comparing WP to Brittanica, you might be understating its scope and impact without realizing it.

I really will not have time to make a thorough and thoughtful response for a while, at least not one which would provide you with any further insight on your own views. I realize now that this has probably seemed like a cop-out, as it must be annoying that I essentially dropped a "conversation bomb" on your talk page and then said "gone for the weekend, cya!". That's not fair to you, so I will remain silent from now on until I have something more substantive to say. Cheers. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It'll still be awhile before I have a thorough response, but your last comments reveal that your attitudes are more like mine than I suspected. Tentatively, I would suggest that you're a optimistic skeptic who likes to take a risk and see it pay off, where as I am a pessimistic, risk-averse skeptic. Many people would hold that this is a sad and pathetic thing to be. Not me! It is a fundamentally natural, if primitive, disposition. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd think of it more along the lines of continuing to play hockey, but periodically griping about perceived deficiencies in the rules.. even something fundamental like the size of the goal or the puck or what type of gear the players use. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions Slrubenstein, I left a response for you on my talk page. Zaereth (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Cnilep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Looks to me like the reform page may get enough folks by to work -- I added some seeder-type comments (the system is to always ask a question in order to get more comments). I think we likely should delete sections which get no activity in the next week and see if we can add some more which will get attention (this is one thing my old occupation required, to be sure). I would avoid having any Jimbo section, really. Perhaps the issue of whether articles on similar topics should conform to similar layouts? Also COI is definitely an area where no one seems happy with how it works AFAICT (with editors seeking info in order to remove other editors from an article on the basis of real or imagined COI). Collect (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Added major change for ArbCom -- hope we get response to it. Collect (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the section on language and culture has moved to Culture, I am going to request that the page we had been using for revisions, User:Cnilep/Culture draft, be deleted. If you would like to keep the page, or to move any content there to your own user space, please let me know. If you have no objection to deleting the page, I will request speedy deletion. Cnilep (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the tone of the reaction to my post on the article Creationism. While what I wrote was perhaps colloquial, it wasn't personal - yet I get the feeling that responses are attacking me personally. I'm frankly astonished to find this coming from you, an editor I've always respected, and I hope I've misjudged the situation. PiCo (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I disappeared a couple of weeks ago ... I was falling behind my work in the real world. I look forward to working on your suggestions [10] in the coming weeks. 172 | Talk 23:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just a friendly reminder that rollback use is only for vandalism. I am sending this in regards to this edit. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, rollback is to be used only for vandalism reverts. Please do not continue to use your rollback tool on good-faith edits. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see User:Buster7/Incivility. The discussions at WP:Civility/Poll and WP:Areas of Reform are proceeding. Lets see where they lead.--Buster7 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Judaism#.22oldest.22_claims. I'd say you were rushing a little, making me look like an newbie Wikipedia editor. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw your reply there. I am glad we understand each other now. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi SL. In the light of the recent discussions about civility and how not to drive new editors away I found this dif to be below your usually high standard, as it seems to imply that new comers have no business meddling in policy and that their arguments weigh less than those of more experienced editors. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I closed this AfD as delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futuristic Leland could you delete it and it's talk page for me please?·Maunus·ƛ· 18:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you also delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurepop please? ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to do something about this article it screams to the high heavens for being conformed to NPOV, FRINGE and UNDUE. more than five different editors have expressed this concern but have been fended off with non-arguments by a single article owner. Lets do somethign about it - for example starting by moving it to Ashkenazi intelligence hypothesis or Ashkenazi intelligence theory and balancing the articles points by moving the criticisms into the main text and presenting the mainstream viewpoint in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Maunus' suggestion that the word theory be added to the article title is a great one. This would make it clear that the article isn't actually about the intelligence of Ashkenazim but about the theory. There indeed needs to be more references to specific criticism of the theory itself without turning the article into a debate about race & intelligence, but this is more down to a lack of edits than to POV. Thoughts? Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to clarify that when I tag the article as POV it does not mean that I think the writer of the article necessarily has this POV - in only means that the article comes off biased towards this POV for lacking the opposing viewpoint. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not a theory, and does not corrspond to the scientific sense of "theory," so, no. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How so? It is of course not falsifiable, but it is a theory linking observed facts (whether we agree that they are observed interpreted correctly) to a causal framework intended to explain them (natural selection) (whether or not we agree that they explain the facts) - if theory is not the right term then what is? (certainly not hypothesis as it would have to be testable). I mean conspiracy theories are not testable, verifiable or falsifiable but they are theories nonetheless. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you deleted Futurepop supposedly as per the AfD; I don't think 3 deletes (including the nominator) versus 2 opposed (including myself, I'll grant) makes for consensus to delete. I'd like to merge the article into another larger article as per the discussion, but deleting the current text (and all history) outright makes that more difficult now. - Korpios (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I originally closed the AfD (I was not entitled to as I am not an admin - but I had misunderstood the policy on non-admin-closures). The article was relisted and Slrubenstein closed it as delete - presumably with the same rationale. I closed it as delete because an AfD is not a vote but instead weighs the arguments against eachother. In this case I judged that there was not enough usage documented in reliable sources to sustain stand alone article. I did not exlcude the possibility of merging content into a main article such as Electronic Body Music or Electronic Music. and I added that If anyoned wished to perform the merger after the article having been deleted ask an admin to restore the article to your userspace. Sorry for the confusion.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, I'm wondering about your decision to delete futurepop. There were two deletes, one merge and one keep on the AfD. a) I feel that the points I raised were at least to a certain extent valid and meriting discussion before any final action was taken. Can I ask why you don't agree and didn't express your thoughts on why in the discussion? b) Even if you disagree, with there being thoughts of a merge in the discussion, would it not have been more appropriate to stay any deletion so content could be moved and backed up by the sources I referenced? Thanks for your time. --MilkMiruku (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see my explanation above. It all boils down to my misunderstanding of when non-admins are allowed to close.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Slrubenstein - can you please undelete the article and reopen the AfD or start it afresh? Thanks --MilkMiruku (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the reply :) --MilkMiruku (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

... please comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Edit warring at Ancient Egyptian race controversy continued. Thank you. Zara1709 (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note, Slrubenstein, that I did not label Zara as "topic-ban Zara". I was suggesting to ROUX that actually topic-banning Zara is a possible solution to her threat to start an edit war, in response to ROUX's suggestion to topic-ban me instead. I’m sure that when you read that entry carefully you will see this, and will appreciate that there is a world of difference between my sentence and your assumption. I appreciate your efforts to help the article, and I generally agree with your various suggestions, but please don't jump to conclusions about my maturity or my motives - this causes unjust reputational damage. Wdford (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted - thanks for that. My frustration is actually more with admins who thunder in with bans and blocks, shouting "troll" and "POV-pusher", without making any effort to actually understand the issues at heart. Thanks for taking the time - see you on the talk page. Wdford (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there's definitely a reasonable point to be made here, that the beginnings of the HRE are quite confused. Obviously JHK has way more knowledge and experience with these issues than I do, so I want to be cautious about this, but I do think that people whose specialties are too close to a subject sometimes can have problems with perspective, and I think this issue is a case where JHK had that. Obviously, there's tons of reasons to view Charlemagne's kingdom as different from that of his successors. Certainly Berengar I and Otto I did not rule the same state in any reasonable way. As such, I think it's very valid to say the Holy Roman Empire, as a kind of permanent union of the Frankish successor states of Germany and Italy, or, later, as an alternative term for Germany alone, did not come into existence until 962.

That being said, the earlier line of western emperors from Charlemagne to Berengar I presents a problem. There is no common term in use for them. In lists in general reference sources and the like, they are normally referred to as Holy Roman Emperors. I think the article Holy Roman Emperor does a reasonably good job with this issue, in terms of listing them (because, where else are you going to list them?), but also noting why their inclusion is problematic. I think that the idea of the Holy Roman Empire as beginning with Charlemagne is fairly widely held, even if wrong, and that, moreover, the idea that Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Emperor is much harder to dispel - certainly the title he used was the same as the title used by Charles V seven centuries later, neither of them calling themselves "Holy Roman Emperor." In terms of this article, I think a statement should be made in the introduction along the lines of:

Although Charlemagne was the first western ruler to be crowned emperor by the Pope, the Holy Roman Empire as such cannot be seen to have begun until the coronation of the German king Otto I as Emperor in 962.

to replace the sentence

The first emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was Otto I, crowned in 962.

In terms of further development, I don't know that I can make any commitments. But do let me know if you think that statement is acceptable. I think acknowledging the question is a better way to go than pretending it doesn't exist. john k (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

All the Holy Roman Emperors called themselves "Roman Emperor" or simply "Emperor". None of them ever called themselves "Holy Roman Emperor." You can find that there has, in fact, been some dispute over whether wikipedia should even use that term - it is not used in German, where they say Römisch-Deutscher Kaiser ("Roman-German Emperor"). Even this is not the official title, but simply a mash-up of the two titles of Roman Emperor and German King. My understanding is that Otto's crowning was functionally identical to Charlemagne's crowning. The distinction was that the kingdom Otto already ruled was different from the kingdom Charlemagne already ruled. Certainly from relatively early on the Holy Roman Emperors themselves came to the idea that Charlemagne was their predecessor. Thus Emperor Charles IV in the 14th century was clearly numbering himself from the Carolingians (Charles I was Charlemagne, Charles II was Charles the Bald, Charles III was Charles the Fat), and viewing them as his predecessors. There was a tradition that the Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire was Charlemagne's crown (it wasn't). Obviously there was also a tradition of being successor to the Roman Emperors, but it is wrong, I think, to equate those two traditions - the latter was pretty clearly a self-consciously antiquarian one, an attempt to link the modern state to the ancient one. The former was believed to be a historically accurate one - a real belief that Charlemagne was their direct predecessor. This belief is one which more or less persisted well after the Empire's demise, and which can still be seen in Bryce, writing 100 years ago, in the Shorter Cambridge Medieval History of 50 years ago, and in general works of reference today, including Encarta. It seems important enough to be mentioned in the article. I'm not sure what you mean about a "sop to a particular political position." Are there any currently existing political positions which care about the Holy Roman Empire? If you mean the question of whether Charlemagne was German or French, that seems irrelevant to me - I think he should be listed both in a list of Kings of France and in a list of Holy Roman Emperors, and mentioned in discussions of the history of both countries. Furthermore, the pre-Ottonian emperors include some clearly non-German figures, like Charles the Bald and Guy of Spoleto. john k (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mess again. Shedloads of unverifiable citations, questionable and perhaps irrelevant sources, redundant sentences, etc. Same editor you've encountered before. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. It needed the change! So according to the way it was, I guess I just call my travel agent and say, "Two Economy for the Roman Empire." With appreciation, Afaprof01 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

May I point out to you that

1. You violated the 3 revert rule with your last revert on Christianity and Judaism. I do not plan to take you to the court for it, but still, for the record. Just in case you plan on making a habit out of it.
2. You made a personal attack when you posted "Debresser has two problems". But using good faith I'll assume you meant "The arguments of Debresser are problematic for two reasons" etc. Likewise, your advise to "look up the word inconsistent in the dictionary" is denegrating. I hope you will be able to reply more courteously next time.
3. It was inconsiderate of you to point out my mistake in the word "destructed". I am, after all, not a native English speaker. Frankly, I think a compliment on my English would be more in order than exasperating at the lack of it.

This is on the personal side. If you'd like to, feel free to write me on my talkpage. Concerning your arguments, please see the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I did not violate 3 RR
2. I made no personal attack. Every reader will understand - it is clear from context as well as common English usage - that "Debresser has two problems" is an elipsis for "Debresser has two problems with this article." I make this point explicitly clear by then going on to list the two problems Debresser has (with the article). There is nothing personal here.
3. If English is not Debresser's native language, I have two bits of advice: (1) do not edit Wikipedia when English language usage and style are the issues (which is the case here, i.e. Debresser's misunderstanding the passage he keeps deleting), and (2) I would hope there is a Wikipedia in Debresser's language that he can comfortably edit, without risking deleting someone's work or getting into an argument because he does not understand the language adequately. Debresser wants me to compliment him on his knowledge of English. But I am neither complimenting nor criticizing him - none of this is personal. This is only about improving Wikipedia articles. Debressers incomplete knowledge of English is a barrier here, but by implication he has a native language and I am sure can make very prodductive edits there. Debresser does not like my pointing out the mistake with "destructed." He does not get my point, which is that if he can make this kind of simple mistkae - and obviously does not take the time to check his writing against an English dictionary, even though he now confesses that English is not his native language and that his knowledge is imperfect, then we should not be surprised when he misreads other people's edits, on article pages or talk pages. This is not a personal attack, just following through the implications of what Debresser himself acknowledges. I have no personal feelings about Debresser. I just want good Wikipedia articles, and based on what Debresser writes here, I imagine there is another language Wikipedia he could edit with real satisfaction and success. Wouldn't that be a good thing?Slrubenstein | Talk 10:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you did violate the 3 revert rule. please check the pertaining policy. And you continue here with your denegrating remarks. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would sincerely regret it if I had violated the 3RR - but I have gone over it again and still do not see it. Perhaps you can provide the edit diffs? I honestly am not trying to be a pain in the ass but I just do not see it. I really have checked. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my error. Debresser (talk)

Instead of seeking a change to WP:WHEEL, you may want to consider developing ethical principles instead: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform/Ethical principles for administrators. --Atomic blunder (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't have any strong views one way or the other about the section Dinkytown (talk · contribs) disputes in EGE. I see that they are acting intemperately and not waiting for responses. I am afraid this is behaviour which, if continued, will probably lead to a block. Mathsci (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Dinkytown probably has to learn to be more patient, that's all. No need for extra drama on ANI at this point. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree and share your hope! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Slrubenstein. I did a rough rewrite of the section and put it up on the talkpage. If we can form some consensus behind it, I'll put it up on the main page so people can focus on improving the section with additional relevant information. Thanks, —Aryaman (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Where have I ever threatened to block Dinkeytown? How can you possibly accuse of this, with no evidence? This is unfair and wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents: slander is for spoken words. Libel is for written words. I believe you meant the latter. HTH. SpikeJones (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, but I'd rather not worry about the precise meaning of either word. In law there are important differences with important consequences. I just want Cla68 to apologize for what I hope was a good faith mistake, and strike out his mistake, whether you call it slander or libel. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I interpreted this remark to be agreeing with Mathsci's previous remark. If you say that you only meant to agree with Mathsci's subsequent comment, I believe you and retract my allegation. Mathsci's behavior in this episode was much worse than Dinkytown's and, as an administrator, you shouldn't have given it a pass. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

How was MathSci's behavior worse than Dinkeytown's? Dinkeytown deleted an entire section because he didn't like it; MathSci wanted to encourage more research into the topic. Shouldn't we always favor the editors who support research? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Mathsci shouldn't have been threatening blocks to someone who wanted to remove uncited text. That, in my opinion, is bullying, and is unnaceptable. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just history merged your old user page archives, User:Slrubenstein/archive 1, User:Slrubenstein/archive 2, and so on, from their old subpages from titles such as User:SlRubenstein (archive 2). I found archive 2 while checking out some old deleted edits, then figured that I should do the same thing on all the other archives. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 03:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed that this talk page, which you semiprotected late last year, might be unprotected and watched with great vigilance to see if the problem has gone away. --TS 22:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello there sir. Please remind me how to send a user an email? For the life of me I have tried numerous times and never been able to figure it out without having to ask somebody only to find out it's something like WP/blahblah/specialuser/emailthingy/. Please help! :) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI: [11] The Four Deuces (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of DEs and their effect is to prevent the improvement of articles and to discourage editors who actually have expertise in various subjects. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am following the procedures and have posted to the Wikiquette alert notice board.[12] The Four Deuces (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that User:Introman is a sock for the blocked editors User:RJII and User:All Male Action (who was blocked as a sock for RJII). You were involved in the RFAR so you should remember it.[13] While DE, libertarian POV-pushing and editing the same group of articles is not in itself suspicious, there are many other similarities: creation of obscure templates to prevent edit wars,[14][15], discussion of creating new accounts,[16][17] edit-warring over the definition of capitalism, arguing about whether libertarians are classical liberals and whether modern American liberals are social/welfare liberals, use of the Encyclopedia Britannica Online article on "Liberalism" as a source. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that this is why you are being misunderstood at all. Most likely the reason is that the comment is highly uncivil and (I hope not deliberately) provocative. I urge you to strike or refactor it and make your point more calmly. As is its uncivil nature is distracting from the points you are trying to make. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at the same discussion, and while I can appreciate your frustration Slrubenstein, this might be an opportune time for a breather and a few hours away from the computer screen. Regards,  Skomorokh  19:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I will take a little break. The purpose of talk pages is to improve the article. Maybe my comment didn't contrubut to that. Bot read Stevertigo's comment carefully, follow the logic and see where it leads you. Wherever it goes, it is far, far far away from helping people improve that page. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. Still, it is best that we appear as an example to him rather than sink below a suitable level. lifebaka++ 01:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's too late for either of you in that regard, lifebaka. But still I extend to Slr all respect, with the understanding of course that I too can pull up diffs. I've commented again on the ANI. -Stevertigo 02:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, did you know we have {{facepalm}}? Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Slrubenstein! I enjoyed your anecdote about the three shacks at FAC the other day. Shana Tova, DVD 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify and to make sure, my representation of you was not intended as an insult or a comment on how you were handling the issue. As stated before, it was badly written. Thanks for understanding. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 19:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's a relief. :) Thanks. And now I understand perfectly what you mean with your metaphor about the fog. Initially I was confused, because you and Stevertigo were arguing fiercely and when I asked for clarification you told me that Stevertigo was to blame for my confusion. But I get it now.

I tried to mediate the dispute by inviting Steve to address the issues. I can't tell if he's willing or not, his most recent reply strikes me as cryptic (again, communication issues). I said before I'd stop commenting on this issue- to heck with that. But Steve did bring up one good point- what can we really do about it, other than ask him to reform? Blocking strikes me as a bit harsh. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 19:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, now he's blocked now for 2 weeks. Seems my lousy mediation got taken over by User:Tznkai, who was better equipped to deal with the situation. I hope this calms things down for a while, and things will turn out all right in the end. :) A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 17:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A whole lot of things happened at the same time so that's why no news. Lost access to my e-mail addy too. Will let you know as soon as I get a new addy.

Ramdrake.

Please e-mail me at jgoyer01 at gmail dot com. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, Steven, I've lost your e-maill addy. Think you could e-mail me at above when you get a minute?--Ramdrake (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's ok - that's how I read your post :) EyeSerene^talk 08:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm asking for reviews of this article (since it is the subject of a current lawsuit) from people with more experience than me of writing about controversial organisations. If you have time to read and review this that would be great, you can either comment on the talkpage, or e-mail me privately. Thanks again Tim Vickers (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing yet, you can try this way?. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I requested a checkuser on User:Introman and he is now blocked. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The investigator was persuaded.[18] I looked through edit and talk page histories and the similarities are very close. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask you to look again at the situation, starting with Throwaway's user talk page, not with the ANI report Irvine22 made (or at least starting with the 1 October ANI report Throwaway85 made re Irvine22). I find it hard to believe that you would make this block, and declare the editor a racist, being fully cognizant of the background and context. And it bears repeating again: at the time the remark was made, Irvine had not made it clear that he claims to be black (which Throwaway doubts is true), despite the conversation on Throwaway's talk page where it would be obvious to do so. Rd232 ^talk 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also bring to your attention that User:Irvine22 recently declared on his userpage that "What About Bob? has to be one of my favorite movies.". Read the plot summary and consider whether Irvine22 choosing to note that at this time (Irvine22 having no history of editing films) doesn't give you an insight into the situation. Rd232 ^talk 23:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked him, after reading your rationale at AN/I and what he wrote on his talk page in the unblock request. The thing is, in my view, you should not have reblocked after the initial unblock request was granted. It may be wheel warring. In any event, I think Throwaway85 is sufficiently aware of sensitivity that there is very little likelihood of a reoffense.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've undone my unblock temporarily, to allow you others time to comment at AN/I. Hope you'll do so.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how that one sneaked through. Virgin were doing a series of adverts based on classic films, and I think someone just wanted to do a "cowboys and Indians" parody and ... well ... failed. Black Kite 09:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[19]? T34CH (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I love your user page! The prominent standing of Keats' "ode on a grecian urn", the respectful placing of the Tanakh under the category of human works, the placing of the movie "Pecker" in a list of movies that also include works by Chaplin and Fellini. Ha! I love it. I will post my list on my user page as soon as I know how to make it look half way as decent as yours. Thanks for the ideas. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to make sure that [20] is in error. That's not where the comment belonged. I'm not sure if you meant to quote it or what. I'm removing the text from that location. Thanks. Fixentries (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to apologize for any antagonism between us. I better understand your positions and appreciate the expertise you bring to wikipedia. Fixentries (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: last message. If you want to quote me, please use quotation marks. Inserting the comment there as if I had placed it there is misleading. As far as "flip-flopping" I am free to change my mind. Actually, it wasn't a flip-flop. What the first statement meant was that this article is not about the individual heritability of intelligence. What I meant later was that if the editor wanted to make claims about what is mainstream psychology, we'll need to look at an actual list of who is involved on what side. I was merely responding to the person. At most, I may have not been consistently applying what I said to you, for which I apologize. I meant what I said the first time but I may have phrased it poorly. Anyway, I am sincerely not trolling you, please assume good faith. I am editing articles as I see problems with them, as I try to broaden my knowledge on wikipedia. I bring what personal expertise or knowledge I have when I can, and otherwise try to learn as I have learned from you and the other editors. Any mistakes I have made are not intended to upset anything here. Fixentries (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a button missing! I just wanted to chat about the 172/Cognition mystery. If it is as it appears, it's one of the greatest Wikipedia hoaxes, and I still can't quite believe it. Do you have any insights you'd like to share?   Will Beback  talk  09:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at T34CH's talk page.
Message added 00:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

T34CH (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the block, Introman has not responded. RJII apparently stood for the "Radical Jewish Intelligence Initiative".[21] RJII explained his motives on his user page:[22] I reported a new editor, User:Dupledreux as a sock for RJII and he is challenging the block.[23] The Four Deuces (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe RJII's story either and someone else probably wrote it because he did not have the same level of literacy. But the fact he would post something like that shows a very malicious attitude. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I am not sure that I ever added anything constructive to the discussion, and I am pretty much off Wikipedia these days so I will probably not be participating. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I am bringing this to your talkpage because it seems you want to reduce the issue to a matter of personal/self-interest, and I see no need to discuss what you think my personal motivation is on the talk page of Race and intelligence.

I really don't know why you bring up the issue of between-group differences. If it is your belief that I am in any way trying to conflate within-group differences with between-group differences, then I request that you read through my posted comments with a bit more attention to detail. I have provided ample information which makes perfectly clear that within-group differences, as far as the overwhelming consensus is concerned, cannot be used to make or support any claims regarding between-group differences. And, more importantly, I have tried to make it clear why that is true. Jensen is the only researcher I am aware of who believes that within-group differences can be used to make such claims provided no "factor X" can be identified. I have also made it clear where the consensus resides regarding the identity of "factor X", and why most people consider Jensen's argument "wrong". One reason for my discussing Jensen, Flynn and Lewontin at length is to point out that, just as Flynn notes, the bulk of the criticism directed at Jensen is pointed at the wrong part of his claim, i.e. the problem is not that he believes within-group differences can, in some form, be used to make claims about between-group differences. Jensen's basic argument is relatively sound provided that there is nothing which could serve as "factor X". Rather, the weakness is that he did not recognize anything which could serve as "factor X". That is the real problem with Jensen's claims, that is exactly what Snyderman & Rothman are reporting, and that is what anyone who has read Jensen critically and with a view towards understanding him sees the problem to be. The rest, who have satisfied themselves with reports of Jensen's supposed "racism" have, as is typical, missed the point entirely.

And this brings me to a point I think is very much worthy of discussing - with you in particular, seeing as you've made it a point to accuse me of pushing a "racialist agenda". There is an enormous and yet - apparently - easily overlooked difference between pushing a POV and trying to represent "controversial" points of view fairly and accurately. And I put the scare-quotes around "controversial" because, where credible experts are involved, 9 times out of 10, the "controversy" really stems from people who do not take the time to understand a position if it appears to contradict their own point of view. Jensen is a perfect case in point.

Wikipedia's coverage of controversial topics - and race-related topics in particular - has been systematically skewed to promote what is oftentimes nothing more than misinformed "expert" opinion calculated to play more on public sympathies than to contribute to the furtherance of a real understanding of the issues involved. If Wikipedia has any real value, it resides in discussing the real issues and the real points of contention, and not satisfying itself with "Professor X. said Professor Y. promotes racist claims" or "Professor Z. has been said to have connections to Institution XY, and Institution XY is said to be racist", and leaving it at that. That kind of reporting is perhaps worthy of popular magazines and newspapers which are more concerned with selling their publication than with informing people as to what is really at issue. But an encyclopedia? An uninvolved individual could very easily form the opinion that quite a few editors involved in these articles have one intention only, and that is to make sure that anything which disagrees with their point of view is labeled as "racist", "racialist", "eugenicist" or any other such label. This is, as I see it, just as POV as the fruitballs who come from time to time pushing real racist claims, and just as damaging to the project. One could argue that it is perhaps even more damaging, because, rather than contributing to an understanding which could perhaps help to reduce the problem, it forces people to radicalize. And if you don't see that popular opinions on race-related matters are highly subject to such radicalization, then you really are blind to the POVs involved here. Arguing that "Professor X. said it in a respectable journal, and thus we have the duty to report it" is just a bullshit excuse for making sure that little 'r' word gets in the article. What should interest us is not who called who a "racist", but rather why the claim of "racism" is being made in the first place. Repeating such things uncritically accomplishes nothing.

Am I claiming that you are guilty of such things, or that the problems with these articles are due to your involvement in them? No. But I am claiming that you have misjudged me, and that fact has led you to feel it unnecessary to read what I have written as closely as you should. Otherwise you would not continue with these accusations that I'm trying to misrepresent the concept of heritability in favor of "racialism". I'm not. But specific claims regarding heritability can only be made in respect to specific racial-ethnic groups. That is a central point of the research which simply cannot be overlooked, and to do so is to make an unwarranted, over-generalized claim which no credible behavioral geneticist would make. The whole idea behind mentioning within racial-ethnic groups is to prevent people from taking this data and trying to make claims across groups. Why can't you see that?

If these issues mean as much to you as you say they do, then I really do request that you assume in good faith that not everyone who appears to disagree with you is pushing some kind of "agenda", and that significant improvements can be made to these articles in a way which truly informs and educates instead of propagandizes. I hope we can work together to improve some of these articles instead of passing personal attacks back and forth. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the whole body of research which has been done on intelligence in the US, you'll find studies on White Americans, African Americans, Native Americans, Asians Americans and Hispanic Americans. As I'm sure you're well aware, the identity of Hispanics as far as the US is concerned has changed dramatically over the last 50 years, and today "Hispanic" is considered an ethnic descriptor and not a racial descriptor (as per official US record-keeping). However, the research on IQ in Hispanic populations goes back at least to the 1920s and 1930s, when it was classified as "racial" in nature. Thus, in several areas of modern "race"-related study, you'll often see "race/ethnicity" or "racial-ethnic" when someone wants to be as all-inclusive as possible while respecting the distinction between race and ethnicity. As recent as 2001, studies were done comparing intelligence-related data from "White" and "Hispanic" populations. When this kind of research is presented - as in, for example, Kaufman & Lichtenberger Assessing Adolescent and Adult Intelligence (2005) - it is not at all uncommon to find "racial/ethnic groups" as a joint term. Also, "ethnicity" is sometimes employed as an alternative to the far more politically charged "race", though in practice, the term still has the pretty much same connotation (for example, in one 1982 study, heritability was compared between "Americans of Japanese ancestry", "Americans of European ancestry" and "Koreans" living in Hawaii as "ethnic groups"). Thus, although I did not write "racial-ethnic" in the first place, I can see why the original author felt it was important, and I am accepting on good faith that s/he wrote that with valid reason. --Aryaman (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As in life, we Jews of Wikipedia have to look out for each other. I hope you continue to bring to light these types of "articles". Luckily bigots tend not to be all that smart and their bigotry is easy to spot and get removed, the smart ones that know how to hide their language from the open are the ones we need to be worried about.Camelbinky (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't in any way accusing you of violating WP:NPA, just that I would hate to see a good editor like yourself be blocked. Frankly, I find that article as abhorrent as you do, I just didn't want to see you get a mark against you for something you didn't intend. Happy editing! Frmatt (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Smile! --Ramdrake (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, having looked at the comments on the AfD, I've proposed a compromise...no 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) 21:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor is questioning the lack of sources in the lead for Capitalism. If you would like to discuss this please reply on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Slrubenstein. Just wanted to drop you a quick note to say that I have contacted both DGG and Animate and asked for their participation with concern to both the article itself and the AFD discussion. If you never have had the opportunity to deal with either individual before, you will be pleasantly surprised. Both are experienced editors and administrators that have handled similar type articles and situations. They are balanced – level headed and a calming influence on either side of the conversation. Though we have had our differences in opinions from time to time, DGG & AniMate, I have always listened carefully to their advice and have always benefited from their advice. Hope this helps and remember 99.9% of the time everything does come out right. It may not be in the time frame we were hoping for, but it does resolve itself. Take care. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses on the question of theological construct. I guess there are some matters of opinion which we will just have to agree to disagree about, for example whether the flying spaghetti monster is a clever parody or just childishness. However, one of my beliefs is that all beliefs are sincere. No-one sets out to believe a falsehood. People user their minds, intuition etc to try to understand the universe and life. They come up with their conclusions and sometimes do end up being stuck at a particular conclusion and will there-after ignore new ideas, arguments and evidence. It is indeed a pity when that happens. It may be that I don't have the intelligence to understand what a theological truth is or perhaps I'm just too closed minded, I'm stuck with my existing beliefs, however, please believe me, I would really like to understand.
Regards
Pma jones (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What a disappointing report that was. Some people are just not getting the Big Picture. And it seems we won't get our questions answered because Noleander abandoned the thread some time ago. I could have pointed out to GWH that Noleander was using the websites in question as secondary sources, but what's the point now? He's already muddied up the issue. Hate to see antisemitism become just another "point of view." This keeps up and soon we'll have an article titled "Was Hitler Misunderstood?" I'm literally nauseous. Auntie E. 16:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for the heads-up, but I must tell you that Equazcion is a "wiki-friend" of mine and I have worked with him before. I do not find him to be like Noleander. Noleander I believe is truely antisemitic. Equazcion is writing in good faith and you shouldnt lump him with Noleander. I do believe by being logical and putting forth the facts that Equazcion will back us. Just because someone defends the rights of anti-semites to speak that doesnt mean they are anti-semitic themselves. Think of Equazcion as the Wikipedia version of the ACLU, just as they have to defend some bad people who say bad things in order to defend all of ours rights of free speech, so does Equazcion for the greater good of what he believes Wikipedia is and should be. You should cut him some slack, if he was an anti-semite I dont believe he wouldve stuck up for me and helped me out in other places (and it was after the first time I stated I was a Jew in the original thread on Noleander).Camelbinky (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message at my talk. I've replied in detail there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick note of admiration for your stand against the egregious jew-baiting Noleander has been indulging in. From the moment his articles first came to light it was apparent to me that he was a anti-semitic POV pusher. I do not see how a review of his editing contributions in toto can lead a reasonable person to any other conclusion.

It disappoints (yet, alas, does not surprise) me that other Wikipedians have attempted to argue he is merely misunderstood and being defamed by a handful of zealots. Ah well. Crafty (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Craftyminion's talk page.
Message added 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Crafty (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)