User talk:Slrubenstein/Archive 29

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.

Can you check the accuracy of these edits by Stevertigo, and fix them, beginning with [1] (three or four edits). Also, please note "Nazarenes" goes to a disambiguation page. Thanks. I know you are knowledgeable in this area, and I am not. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We need some extra eyes on the articles about Race and Ethnicity in Latin America - e.g. Mestizo, Mexican people and People of Brazil, White Latin American, Latin American. Every time I do any work on them they seem to re-degenerate very quickly into a US-centric ordinary language understanding of how race and ethnicity works and not on actual scholarship about race and ethnic relations in those countries. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am writing the article on Race and ethnicity in Latin America - all input is welcome.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I recently proposed recognizing that one source may be either primary or secondary depending on its use in a context. The idea was inspired by a comment of yours (11:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)). It's pending. If this or a proposal like it is not made part of the policy, that might amount to a repudiation of the content of the proposal, making the result of the repudiation effectively a part of the policy. I think the proposal is a good idea but maybe others don't think so, in which case we revert to a source being primary or secondary regardless of the context in which used. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the proposal being discussed? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 11:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops. It's open for discussion at the Source Both Secondary and Primary topic, with the draft here. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC) (Corrected link and surrounding: 16:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC))

Hi,

I understand that you were active in hot debate over the merge of Quest for the Historical Jesus into Historicity of Jesus. I was wondering if you might be able to provide a synopsis of the debate ... I've glanced at it in the archives of HoJ, and it is *long*!  :-)

My concerns:

1. Nothing at all was mentioned on the Quest page (usually there is a banner put in place when a merge under consideration).

2. As I understand it, the two articles have slightly different subjects. HoJ (which I am not terribly familiar with) appears to compare and evaluate the various opinions on the Historicity of Jesus today (and borders on OR); whereas the Quest article is concerned with the history and origins of the debate.

3. The term "Quest for the Historic Jesus" as you know comes from the title of Albert Schwietzer's book "The Quest of the Historic Jesus. It has since entered the vocabulary of theology, and is something a student or lay reader may come across. If such a reader searches using "for" rather than "of", an understandable mistake, s/he will be dumped in the HoJ article and would most likely never notice the reference to Schwietzer's book.

4. I think the HoJ article may be getting a bit long for WP guidelines. I'll have to look and see what the WP guidelines are for article length.

Thanks for listening! Webbbbbbber (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This user was a sockpuppet of Mikemikev. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be fun to run into you in New Orleans. I'll be presening thursday morning and I'll try to come to the session where you are discussant in the afternoon. If I don't catch you I hope you'll have fun nonetheless! Best. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There is discussion on the above page regarding how much space to give antisemitism in the article, and we could probably use some input on sourcing as well. I think your input on the subject in general, and regarding antisemitism particularly, would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Hi there. I noticed you were arguing with an editor about Men and feminism in much the same style and about much the same thing as I have been in the Men and feminism article: see Talk:Men and feminism#Article should be deleted. I haven't gotten the impression I can reason with the other editor and figured it would be prudent simply to let you know that the same debates are happening there. Any input you might provide could be useful, too. Thanks. --Meitar (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Afraid the issue is longer and more involved than that - see his edits to various men's and women's rights topics. I warned him months ago to stop using WP as a forum but this account keeps editting in that manner anyway--Cailil ^talk 14:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays Slrubenstein!!!

- GetAgrippa (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)]]

Can you please explain why you reverted my last edits on Jesus?! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 18:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph about Jesus in Islam was still there. But did you even read the sentence I removed??? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 18:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 18:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to "Jesus" (paragraph "Islamic Views") without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. My edit/content is relevant with the title of paragraph that is "Islamic Views" about Jesus. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Zubair71 | Talk 15:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

On some talk page you wrote: "Please stop orwading your own arguments...". Upon reflection, it's possible you meant to type "forwarding", but I really wanted this to be a new word for me which was a conjunction of orally+wading, which might mean something like "speaking anew of a topic as one might explore the depths of a still lake or fast running river", but is really just new fancy way of saying "bullshitting". Cheers, and have a happy new year. aprock (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Slrubenstein,

You've been around the block for more years than I've been on Wikipedia in dealing with articles related to the August 2010 Race and Intelligence ArbCom case. It has been dismaying to me to observe how little enforcement of the ArbCom decision in that case has taken place since the decision was announced. You and all of the administrators are volunteers, and all of you are busy. At length some contentious editors and their sock drawers and meat puppets have been shooed away from those articles, but still the articles are visited by new I.P. editors who are apparently recruited off-wiki, and much work needs to be done to fix the articles. I have hoped to help the project improve by keeping source lists that all wikipedians can use to improve articles. As I resume article editing after updating those lists again, I would appreciate you keeping an eye on my edits to make sure that I am working collaboratively with conscientious editors here. I will take care to consider carefully any advice you have for me about editing on contentious topics. Wishing you all the best in a happy new year. -- P.S. Just adding the sig I should have added on New Year Day (I see you figured out who was posting this) and saying thanks for your reply on my user talk. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I corrected some spelling errors in your comment on Talk:Bible; I didn't do anything that changes meaning, just making it easier on myself and others to read. I hope you're doing well, it seemed uncharacteristic of you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We have several articles on this 'lost book' and its variations, and a number of links using it as a source. I've raised the issue of sorting this out at WP:FTN#The book of Jasher, maybe the wrong place to start but there you are and now I'm notifying relevant projects. Thanks.Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for dragging on the mud slinging at the Evolution talk page. It was difficult not to. Thank you for bringing it to an end as it was exhausting. Again, I apologize and will try my best to refrain from it. mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist.[2] -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

For me, the worst thing about this POV battle on EP has been winding up on the opposite side of you. We've edited together mostly productively. On some level, you probably recognize or at least suspect what's really going on at the EP debate. I've been in lots of POV battles, and I can see it, too. Expert acceptance of EP has popped up really quickly, so it's no surprise that plenty of well-informed people haven't noticed that EP has basically proved itself in the last 15 years. Honestly, if I were on the wrong side of a debate, I don't know what anyone from the other side could say to convince me, so I don't know what to say to you. Maybe this: you wouldn't be the first person to be taken by surprise by the sudden advance of EP. There's no shame in missing that sudden shift in the field of psychology. But sticking to an old view when the new one has won over neutral experts, that would be a real mistake. Leadwind (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has to worry about convincing anyone. Alkso it is irrelevant if EP is going to conquer or if it has conquered - wikipedia doesn't write that it has conquered untill a significant number of secondary sources unequivocally says that it has. Just worry about sources and about actually understanding what those sources say so that you don't misrepresent them due to enthusiasm. (we'll help you with this last part).·Maunus·ƛ· 14:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Also SLR, I've taken to referring to you as "SLR" in running text, but especially when two editors are on opposite sides of a POV battle nicknames can be a sensitive thing. If there's a name or handle you'd prefer that I use, let me know. Leadwind (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"The only conflict between us is I wish WP to be edited following core content policies and you do not care about them." Or maybe you and I have a honest difference of opinion on how to apply policy to the EP page? Anyway, is there a nickname that you'd prefer to "SLR"? Leadwind (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to censor WP to conform to your religious views, at least have the decency to discuss your desires on the talk page, rather than edit warring, as you are at Ritual Decalogue. You should know better by now. — kwami (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

SLR, I do not appreciate the lazy accusations you made on the Ritual decalogue talk page. There is something particularly annoying about a false accusation which is exuberantly punctuated with an exclamation point! Had you looked my actual edits before denouncing them you would have seen that 1) I never even remotely deleted any sources and 2) I was not reverting anyone. As I said on that talk page I do not want to get into the larger mess you all have going surrounding the larger topic field. I was trying to fix the weasel wording in the opening lines of this entry only. It would be nice if people didn't sink their fangs in the minute someone new comes along to offer a different opinion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. Much appreciated.Griswaldo (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you are active discussing this article on the talk page for various important concerns. I acknowledge I added those five paragraphs without discussing, as I should have. But was there something really wrong with the deleted five paragraphs? We are both ripe for the picking. Let's talk. I undid your deletion because Wikipedia has a policy of saving work, moving it if necessary as I had done, moving the previous lead section material to the history section. — CpiralCpiral 23:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion on my talk page. I see you reverted the article back to the old version and left a message on its talk page. I answered your last remarks on my talk page, and now request we move to the article's talk page. — CpiralCpiral 03:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there are various species of descriptive relativism are empirical claims may tempt the philosopher to conclude that they are of little philosophical interest, but there are several reasons why this isn't so. — CpiralCpiral 02:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about temptation, and I am not your tutor. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the grammar, and you changed it back to the way shown. The next day, you seem to have forgotten, and accuse me of begging your knowledge about Relativism. Obviously the way it is stated makes sense to you. Yet try as I may, it does not make grammatical sense to me. Please help me understand the grammar of the sentence in question. Please help me understand your edit.— CpiralCpiral 19:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is good working with you, and I'm sorry it seems to have disturbed you, good Slrubensetein. Assume good faith. This I know: Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is good working with Wikipedia, much more than working with any one editor at some perhaps unpleasant point in time. But you must answer. — CpiralCpiral

Please consider participating in the Gospel of the Ebionites peer review to prepare the article for GAC. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw, as the editor most responsible for giving good advice on the peer review of the Ebionites article that led to its promotion to GA in 2006, I also want to take the opportunity to say thanks again for making that effort. Ovadyah (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

hi Slrubenstein. I'm trying to contribute a small, verifiable and important edit to the evolutionary psychology article, but it keeps being shot down by Leadwind. I have outlined my justification on the EP talk page, and a discussion is starting there. I would really appreciate it if you could add your opinion to the discussion. many thanks Maximilianholland (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slrubenstein, it does not look like the proposed topic ban for user:Noleander is going to pass. I personally believe that user should be cite banned. Somebody suggested taking that user to Arbitration. This might be a good idea and the right thing to do. Would you consider this please? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you put together the case I will support it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I am afraid this task is not for me. If you are to respond lets keep it here in one place. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, in principal I believe ArbCom ought to be restricted to arbitrating disputes where violations of personal behavior policies are at issue. I do not think that is Noleander's problem, and I don't like ceeding to ArbCom any more power than that.

I wish we had a policy on "No Impersonal Attacks," but we don't, so we have to trust the community's judgment.

I am a strong believer in community bans, and frankly if the community cannot recognize anti-Semitism in action, I am more worried about the community than about Noleander. An RfC might be more appropriate. But again, I believe in the importance of community action. I posted to AN/I not because I see this as a conflict between me and Noleander, but because as a member of the community I think this article is part of a longstanding pattern of behavior that the community has to deal with. RfCs are usually part of dispute resolution and again, I think that is not quite the proper frame for dealing with this.

As to Slim Virgin's proposal: I think we need to give it a few days, and see. I am not convinced it will fail. Proposals like this, just like AfD's, should not simply be polls. The resolution of an AfD is not made simply by adding up votes but rather by weighing the arguments for and against and following the more persuasive argument. That ought to be the case here too. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My feelings are the same. I totally agree with "if the community cannot recognize anti-Semitism in action, I am more worried about the community than about Noleander." noleander is the user who floods wikipedia with antisemitic articles under indifferent and sometimes even supporting watch of the community. It is what's making me sick.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

So there is the specific case at hand, and the more general issue. Aside from attempting to formulate some ind of policy like "no impersonal atacks" i.e. something that would help identify the WP version of hate speech, I do not know what to do about the general issue. of course, there is an even bigger general issue: even if anti-Semitism did not play into it, this article, like so many Noleander has written, is just a terrible article. Noleander is of course not the only editor who creates or adds to articles by cherry-picking quotes, misrepresenting views, writing on a topic while totally unaware of the leading scholarship on it - people pay lip-service to well-intentioned policies like NOR and WEIGHT and, because of POV-pushing or just laziness, completely defeat their spirit. I wish I knew what to do!

If you have any ideas about how to address the larger issues do let me know. As for Noleander, I think the thing to do is let the discussion continue and reassess the situation Monday. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I have avoided stubbing the article at issue (Economic history ...), while leaving what appears to be mainly usable material. Have a look. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you semi-protect User talk:Materialscientist‎, please? The previous vandalism edits are something that is ongoing. A month would do just fine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 05:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Poor man's talkback notice: User talk:Neutralhomer#page protection. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 05:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Another poor man's talkback notice, same page as above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 05:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

...just squeeze it down to a manageable size, but apparently, you can't do that without closing it. I'm not sure I'm interested in getting involved any further; in fact I wasn't involved then or now, I was just trying to tidy the page. I, too, wouldn't be sure what to move where myself. HalfShadow 15:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You realise I'm not actually an admin, right? I wouldn't want you to get the wrong idea or anything. HalfShadow 22:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Noleander and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --JN466 03:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not for us to try to re-educate anti-Semites.

If not us, then who? If not now, then when? It is in this present moment that the future arises. Now.

Hey, if you want to try, feel free! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in what my fellow editors believe, only in their acts.

How can you possibly understand their acts without being interested in their beliefs? Viriditas (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not a mind-reader. All I can go on is what people write at Wikipedia, and all I really am interested in is the articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That says it all.Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, I shortened your statement on the case's main page and pasted the unabridged version of it on the talk page. If you think I omitted something important, I'll be happy to fix my error. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

One more thing (and, by the way, I apologise that I keep popping up here): the Arbitration Committee has drawn a tentative timetable to try and resolve this case in a timely manner; they would appreciate it if all the evidence could be presented within one week, to then move on to the workshop and the proposed decision phases. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Cpiral is leaving a wake of original research with questionable meaningfulness behind him, and the only cites he presents fail verification due to his having taken some form of *poetic* license with them. I am trying to avoid an edit war. He is now messing with the Time article, after destroying any semblance of sanity to the Metaphysics lede by adding impenetrable jargon of his own invention. What do you suggest as the easiest course of dealing with this: AN/I? 3rd party? RFC? I see you have encountered him already.--JimWae (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to think of this. I can't confirm a single citation, and it reads like someone pushing some very fringe theory. And honestly, I've been around the block a lot, including living in Japan and studying Jews in Japan, and I've not heard about this. Well, except as a joke amongst some scholars. What say you? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't find anything worth saving.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell everything is original research or unreliable source. But frankly, I am currently preoccupied with the ArbCom case on Noleander and anti-Semitism. I am trying to focus on appropriate evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I wasn't sure you had the time for what you did, so thanks. As for Noleander....well, you can assume what my opinion is. But then again, I've always had a problem with the "polite" POV types, and he/she is one of the more heinous types. I have no involvement, so there's not much for me to add, but I check the page several times a day to see what's being said. I notice that the "usual suspects" show up to support the POV types. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have moved User/Slrubenstein/sandbox/Economic history of the Jews to User:Slrubenstein/sandbox/Economic history of the Jews. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Slr, thanks for the comment on my talk page. I respect you as an editor quite a bit despite disagreeing with you at various times. In the end, I just hope that a sensible solution to all this comes about. When I first saw the AN/I my response was -- AfD and RfC/U, along with the requisite amount of disturbed shock after seeing someone post an entry on "Jews and Money". I guess we don't agree on how the situation should have been/should be handled. I just see AN/I as the wrong venue in instances when there is so much emotion involved. I think Noleander will get topic banned by Arbcom, and at this stage I really hope he does. I still don't know for sure if this is just his strong desire to criticize religions gone awry or some more nefarious ethnic prejudice, but either way I think he has clearly shown an inability to edit neutrally when it comes to Jewish topics. The more I look personally the more I believe that to be the case. I do want to offer a less pessimistic option for his focus on Jews the ethnicity, as opposed to Judaism the religion. As you an I both know, when it comes to Jews, Jewishness and Judaism the lines get very fuzzy. I recall our own head-butting at the Judaism entry for instance over just that. It is possible, but perhaps accurate (I really don't know) that when Noleander goes about trying to criticize Judaism, he just gets entangled in this ambiguity each time. I think, at the end of the day, the important thing for people to realize however is that this question of intention doesn't matter as much as what comes out of it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Could you explain the rationale for User:Slrubenstein/sandbox/Economic history of the Jews? Are you planning to rewrite Noleander's disastrous first attempt at an article on this topic? I ask because I have been working in that direction and I wonder if we could collaborate if that is what your intentionis. My take on Noleander's article is that the title Jews and money was extremely unfortunate and that Economic history of the Jews was too broad a scope resulting in the sense that it was a coatrack of antisemitic canards.

However, I think that there are one or more legitimate article topics in Noleander's original text. (I also don't think that Noleander intended to be antisemitic; I think he just has a tendency to miss antisemitism in some of the sources and thus sometimes presents opinions as facts. I recognize that you have a different perspective but I don't think we need to agree in order to work together productively.)

In any event, I have been working on User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and banking as one of the legitimate topics covered by Noleander's original disastrous attempt at an encyclopedic article. The section on the "19th century" is almost entirely Noleander's text as redacted by me to remove the most blatant issues.

I have also been working on User:Pseudo-Richard/History of Jews in American banking which focuses on the U.S. part of the story.

I would like to ask you to review the entire text of these proposed articles as well as critique the article title.

I think the judicious selection of article titles is almost as important as article text because titles change much less frequently than article text does and the article title implies a scope that strongly influences what text is added and deleted from the article.

I am not too thrilled with the title "Jews and banking" as it still sounds antisemitic to me. I'm playing with "History of Jews in banking" but I'm open to other suggestions.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and while I have your attention, I guess I should draw your attention to User:Pseudo-Richard/Role of Jews in the development of capitalism. My thesis here is that not all of the encyclopedic content from Noleander's first attempt at an article on this topic is directly related to banking and that "capitalism" is a broader topic that covers those points that are not really about "banking" per se. I have not worked on this page nearly as much as I have worked on the pages on banking. Still, I figured I'd ask you to take a look so as to get an early assessment from you as to the direction in which I am going. ---Pseudo-Richard (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding Noleander (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Noleander (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from making any edit relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed, in any namespace.

   Any disputes concerning the scope of the topic-ban may be raised on the Arbitration Enforcement page for prompt resolution. Unnecessary "wikilawyering" about the precise scope of the topic-ban is unwelcome and may be cause for further sanctions.

   This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Noleander may request that it be terminated or modified after at least one year has elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Noleander has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project. Any perceptibly biased or prejudiced editing concerning any other group would weigh against lifting of the topic-ban and could also result in further sanctions.

2. The attention of editors and administrators is drawn to the "Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)" clause of Race and intelligence that was recently adopted, as its terms are applicable to other disputes similar to those arising in this current case. For ease of reference, the amended remedy states:

   Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hi SLR hope you're well. I just wanted to bring your attention to this. I'll be away a fair bit over the next few weeks and would a) like your view on the issue and b) wondered in my absence if you'd keep an eye on it. I've warned the user in question. Let me know what you think--Cailil ^talk 00:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Note 90 is not a historian/anthropologist/sociologist of religion or the occult, and does not seem to use the word divination. I couldn't understand this reference on the Astrology Main page, but I thought I would ask you rather than clutter the discussion, assuming everyone else knows what it is. Thanks and thanks for your contribution on the page. Please leave a message on my Talk Page. Robert Currey talk 20:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - where can I find Note 90? - is there a link? It is the first time I have seen it mentioned on the page.

I agree the source for the definition should be authoritative - which is either from a scholar or reputable publication. However, I believe that it should be one that is acceptable to the majority of the practitioners and the current definition is ideal for a minority, but inadequate for most astrologers. Robert Currey talk 20:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry I still don't get it. Where are the numbered Notes? Are these a list of comments on the Talk Page? Are these the footnotes on the main page? Are you able to give me a link, please? Robert Currey talk 21:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh! I think you were referring the footnote in the main astrology page. I thought that at first, but the Geoffrey Cornelius quote didn't seem to relate to divination, so I ruled it out. Robert Currey talk 22:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you contributed to the debate on whether divination is the most appropriate term to define astrology in the first sentence, I wanted to let you know that I have asked for a straw poll on the astrology discussion page to find out whether we should seek alternatives (without specifying the wording at this stage) or we should keep divination. Robert Currey talk 22:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you would take a look at a draft article that I'm working on. If this looks familiar, it is because I started by taking Noleander'sJews and money article and hacking at it, throwing out a lot of irrelevant and even dubious material but keeping stuff that was relevant to the topic. (see the edit summaries to get a sense for what I mean). The more I work with Noleander's Jews and money text, the more I stumble over problematic passages.

The thing is... the Antisemitism article doesn't really take on these issues head-on and give them adequate treatment. My proposed article will do that but I need some feedback as to whether my draft article is headed in the right direction and I would really appreciate input as to how to improve it.

I am particularly concerned about the section titled "Historical development" which I suspect may be too long and too detailed. Still, I didn't want to throw it all out without getting some input from other editors. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your thoughtful response on my Talk Page. It is by far and away the fullest and most thoughtful response that I have received to date. I have moved your comments to User talk:Pseudo-Richard/Economic antisemitism so that they will remain with the article if and when it is ultimately moved to article mainspace. (Question: do you think the draft is ready to move into article mainspace in its current condition?)

I am gratified that you saw value in the draft article and did not have a knee-jerk response of rejecting it because it incorporated text from Noleander's disastrous attempt to write an article on Jews and money.

I am not prepared to address in detail each of the points you made. I will need to digest them for a bit and do some additional research. However, I would like to point out that I have recently made some changes to the Antisemitism article which fit right in with some of your points. When you have time, please look at the (incomplete) section on "Forms" as well as the new introduction to the "History" section.

I think the "six stages of development" model that Jerome Chanes puts forth is very close to what you were talking about in your comments. While there is some evidence of anti-Judaism as far back as the ancient Egyptians and the pre-Christian Greeks and Romans, there is a clear change when Christianity adds religious anti-Judaism to what had hitherto been primarily an ethnic/cultural anti-Judaism. I haven't found a consensus among the sources as to how and when this ethnic/cultural/religious anti-Judaism turned into anti-semitism. This is an area that I have not read enough about.

The key here is that anti-semitism grows during the medieval era to the point where Jews are targeted during the ramp-up to Crusades and are expelled from Iberia.

Although one might expect the emancipation of the Jews to have ended antisemitism, it is argued that antisemitism transformed during the 19th century, culminating in the antisemitism of Nazi Germany which was an amalgam of economic, cultural and racial antisemitism.

I will continue to work on developing these ideas in the Antisemitism and History of antisemitism articles. However, my focus for the time being is on the Economic antisemitism article.

Thanks again for your helpful comments. When you have time, I would appreciate your further thoughts for improving any of the related articles.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

When you have time, I would appreciate it if you would take another look at my article which I have now moved into article mainspace under the title Economic antisemitism. Suggestions for improvement would be much appreciated at Talk:Economic antisemitism. Thank you. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

PR...slr is much more competent about these issues than I ever will be. I don't have access to most of the sources, and frankly, my background is in science. If this were an article on how antisemitism had an effect on biochemistry, I probably could do it. slr is your man for this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, regarding your recent post on Orangemarlin's Talk Page, perhaps you have not read the recent discussion where Orangemarlin explained that he was undergoing major heart surgery that had a low probability of survival. This surgery was scheduled for last Monday and we have not heard from him since. Of course, we all hope that he survived the surgery and is recuperating in ICU but we have no information one way or the other.

As for your suggestion that the next step is an RFC, I am certainly open to that. What I'd like to ask is how you would phrase the RFC. Might I ask that you draft the RFC and invite me to comment before you issue it? You are, of course, under no obligation to do so but I'm hoping that we could collaborate to improve the quality of responses we get.

You have criticized my research methods. I acknowledge that this is not the way to do academic research but I assert that my methods are equal to or better than most work that is done at Wikipedia. I don't think an RFC on this topic will be very fruitful.

On a different tack, Jayjg has raised the question of whether "economic antisemitism" is a phrase that is widely used. A search of Google Books suggests that it is much less used than "racial antisemitism" or "religious antisemitism" so the question seems to be "Is it used enough to warrant there being a Wikipedia article on it?". I think so but Jayjg's comments seem to imply that he does not.

Jayjg also asserted that "economic antisemitism" is not part of any of the "standard taxonomies" but did not respond when I asked what those "standard taxonomies" are and how they differed from the ones that are mentioned in the Antisemitism article. I'm open to being shown that there are taxonomies that do not mention "economic antisemitism". I haven't seen any but that might be because Google Search provides positive results (i.e. it's easier to search for sources that mention "economic antisemitism" than it is to search for sources that don't).

Are your issues with the article different from the ones listed above?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I left a lengthy comment at the AfD page for you - please consider the length just an index of how seriously I take your concern. But, I am here for a completely different reason. Is it your understanding that commodity fetishism is according to Marx a feature of capitalist economies, or of market economies, in general (e.g. any economy where there is a division of labor and people buy and sell goods for money at a market. I imagine this could occur under the Asiatic Mode of Production or the Feudal Mode of Production ...) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm more familiar with Marx's correspondence and to a lesser extent his political activities than with theory per se. So I speak from the point of general impressions rather than specific citations. My feeling is that Marx himself regarded commodity fetishism as a feature of capitalism, but also feel it's very easy to make the case that there was commodity fetishism among the ruling classes of previous social systems. You might enjoy the new Bolerium Books advertising insert, a 5 x 8 card with the slogan "Fighting commodity fetishism with commodity fetishism since 19XX." Carrite (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way! Carrite (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi SLR. You've been a neutral editor on the EP pages in the past. Excluding Manus, the same editors are still there, but a new editor has also joined the pages and has been making very large changes in a way that I feel disrupts the editing process and creates an even greater bias within the pages. Could you drop by and weigh in on the discussion pages? Logic prevails (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the majority opinion isn't on his side, "Logic" needs all the help he can get. Leadwind (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slrubenstein - if you are wondering why you are not getting any response from OrangeMarlin, perhaps you should read this section of his user talk page. Risker (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Do you seriously think this is a club?"

Of course not. Maybe that's not a figure of speech in the UK. In the US, we say "welcome to the club" to mean, "You and me both." Maybe that doesn't translate across the pond. Anyway, if you ever find a proponent of EP who dismisses social forces as imaginary, I'd love to see a link to it, because I've never run across that before. It must be hard to be an honest, educated editor who holds a minority viewpoint. The dishonest, uneducated proponents of minority views have it relatively easy. Leadwind (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You would know.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. Nice riposte, Maunus! Well done. Now all you have to do is find a mainstream source that disagrees with me! Leadwind (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You are also welcome to point me to an example of an EPer who thinks that social forces aren't real. Leadwind (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look at the issue closely. I am basing my comment on what you wrote at User talk:Orangemarlin. It seems the best course of action for you is to draft a RFC to clearly document the consensus. Consult Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure for an overview of the steps to take if the RFC fails to establish a consensus. Good luck. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. I haven't been following this dispute closely, but it overlaps in many respects to the recent AfD at Notzrim. Imo, what would be helpful is a WP:RfC/U. There has been a general pattern of disruptive editing by this editor across a large number of articles on the boundary of Christianity and Judaism including, but not limited to, Notzrim (now redirected), Nazarene (sect), Jewish Christianity, Ebionites, Jesus Dynasty, Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazoraeans, Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of the Twelve, Authentic Matthew (now redirected), and Gospel of Matthew. I'm sure I forgot a few, but you get the idea. I think you will see that most of these edit wars, with several different editors, have a common thread - to make the content of these articles more "mainstream" (by making them less "Jewish"). Ovadyah (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

See my reply on my talk page. Take care. Ovadyah (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

please note the recent constructive debate on the subject.-- mustihussain (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the back and forth edits between us are extremely unproductive. Personally, I really do not like it as I consider you one of the good guys. But the views you are putting forward are not tenable. I really don't think it is worth pursuing. There are more pressing issues and details to discuss. This is not one of them. I hope you will reconsider. danielkueh (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed by your long rant and attempts to cast an aspersion on Thompsma and I. I don't know what has gone into you. But I must say, this is not the kind of behavior I expect from a long-time WP editor and administrator. I hope you realize that you are alone in your views. No one else shares them. I repeat, no one. Not even the statisticians, English professors, and historians that I know. Not even Louis Menand. It is all in your head. Now for the last time, stop this. You're embarrassing yourself and taking time away from more important matters. danielkueh (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User Contributions.—Biosketch (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick thanks for your message. Sorry I have not had time to work on this in recent days.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I was the first to remove your "statistical species" from Evolution. Have learnt a lot by the following discussion. Sorry and thanks. I find a comment from Danielkueh contemptuous and von obend. Was about to retort but there is a complication. I find Thompsma enormously valuable and would like him to continue contributing. But he seems to have difficulties understanding meta-messages. So I want him to feel the encouragement from the support from Danielkueh, although I think your entry that includes the comments on Shakespeare was a good one (a bit long, but correct). --Ettrig (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You might want to edit your statement where you say "MathSci is one of our best articles". Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not stalk me. I find it highly creepy. 15:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I just *hate* creepy things, don't you? Yugh. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for picking up on my faltering explanation. I did not mean that we only used sources from England. I meant something along the lines that we use a western rationalist view for preference, even when writing about a religious subject - or something of that kind. But I believe your intervention may be of more help. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Slrub, I am very disappointed in your behavior against a large number of editor support. WP policy states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." You are deleting a major view with many RS. Five editors have all agreed there should be a statement in the lead about divine inspiration with a redirect to the section. Please undo your revert of my recent additions. If you don't, I plan to take this to the ANI. Sadly, WalkerThrough (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WalkerThrough (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

שנה טובה

I read the Talk page, and I've added the page to my watchlist. I don't have anything to add right now, but I'll chime in if/when necessary. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I <3 it. This made me happy to see. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ktiva vehatima tova for 5772! A gut gebensht yor! Debresser (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, is there a policy/ArbCom case/guideline/etc regarding the scholarly use of the word myth, besides WP:RNPOV? I was thinking there was, but I cannot find it. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am posting this in the hope that you would be a better judge than I of whether one editor is in any way improperly implying anti-semitism on the part of a third editor. Earlier posts on the article talk page had also included claims of anti-semitism which might also be relevant, but I hesitate to have yo wade through the verbiage. The posts at issue are [3] (et seq) which attracted the edit at [4] which for some odd reason I thought might be directed at the other editor (you forgot to mention the well known habit of "jewish bolshevik cossacks" to drink Christian infants' blood ...-Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)) and at [5] a comment from one editor that the post was "funny indeed." The query is - was this just Paul Siebert "making a funny comment" or (as he states at [6] that he was only quoting a novel, or does it appear to be directed at an editor, and with an implication that that editor is anti-semitic? I regard you as a gentleman and a scholar, and one who can better view this issue from a distance than I can. Cheers. And Shana Tova. Collect (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Just in case all you haven't understand the double oxymoron: real Cossacks were anti-Bolsheviks and were ethnically Russian/Ukrainian. Hence Bolshevik Cossacks and Jewish Cossacks are nonsense, and no any anti-Semitism here. Cheers! GreyHood ^Talk 11:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • • • Noted on my UT page the fact that absolute statements are rarely true - and is true of your assertions about Cossacks. There were, indeed, Boshshevik Cossacks and there were, oddly enough, Jewish Cossacks. The problem is in misuse of the word "cossack" to mean more than it should as a specific noun, which was caused by some political forces, not by the original group. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • (putting aside the fact that many people use the word "cossack" metaphorically) Unfortunately, virtually all anti-Semitic canards are oxymorons or inane. That a comment is stupid does not decrease its likelihood of being anti-Semitic, it increases it. This is not a comment on Paul Siebert or anything he has written, it is an observation concerning anti-Semites. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As Greyhood and I correctly noted, the phrase "Jewish Bolshevik Cossacks" is a double oxymoron. This phrase belongs to some (imaginary) Wehrmacht general in a novel written by Julian Semenov. In addition to that, I made a reference to one more well known myth, namely, the perceived habit of Jews to use the blood of non-baptised Christian infants for preparation of matzah. All of that are the examples of absolutely ridiculous stereotypes, and by writing that I simply tried to demonstrate how ridiculous the anon's text was. You correctly concluded that that was a purely ironical comment. Moreover, I don't believe any intellectual and educated person could interpret that comment in another way. The possibility of Collect's insufficient intellectual baggage should be ruled out (for obvious reasons). Therefore, this case adds more evidences (in addition to the already existing ones) to the hypothesis that Collect is not acting in good faith.
I regret that my non-cautious usage of sarcasm distracted you from your routine tasks, and I'll be cautious during the discussions that involve Collect.
Regards. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Your blatant personal attack is noted, and hereby officially complained about. Inane aspersions about "insufficient intellectual baggage" form a gross biolation of WP:CIVILITY, a gross violation of WP:NPA, a gross violation of WP:AGF and a few other policies and guidelines. ab initio Paul, and I ask Mr. Rubenstein here to note it as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Collect. Since this message is addressed to me, I do not think it is a good idea to continue this discussion here. If you want to start a new thread to discuss this issue with me, I think, the best way to do that would be to go to my talk page.
Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You chose to make the blatant attack on Slrubenstein's own user talk page, Paul. I suggest that if any place is appropriate, this is it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that the novel has been named, the best plan is to look at it. I am sure that if Collect had asked Paul Siebert directly, this could have been cleared up quite quickly without involving Slrubenstein or other users. Mathsci (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the colloquies on the article talk page, MAthsci. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the tone of your edits might have been a little too provocative or unpleasant and therefore less likely to elicit a response to your queries. Mathsci (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Alas - I have sought to be scrupulously polite. I was not happy to see another editor apparently being called, even indirectly, "anti-semitic" as I am sure you would also react. "Anti-semitism" is a real enough problem in the world without it being cheapened by being used on people who are not actually anti-semitic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Collect, I suggested that you ask Paul the name of the novel. I wish you had followed my advice. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer that Paul had mentioned the source ab initio - instead of not responding to my valid concerns that we ought not imply that any other editor is anti-semitic in any way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I note that your comment at the RFC starts with "per Maunus"... however, Maunus has subsequently struck out his comments. So... you may wish to amend your comment. Just thought you should know. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, As you suspected it was an accident and I just just apologized. Zero^talk 00:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I would go with the Metzudah edition. It's interlinear, and translates both Chumash and Rashi. From what I've seen, the translation seems very good. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD and do not revert me. I specifically invoked it, after multiple intermediate edits existed to the article. I will not revert you not to start an edit war, but I suggest you should self-revert on the Jesus page. History2007 (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This was Bluebore's comment: Perhaps you should put this policy, and any others you care about, on your watch list... then you would know what is "under consideration" sooner. Just saying.

Are you telling me it wasn't pointy or just that I shouldn't have drawn attention to it? I'll accept the later, not the former and will comment whenever someone appears to ridicule a contributor by the selective use of quotation marks, and other pointy language - just saying!. Best Leaky Caldron 15:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I also came to this late, just like the editor who BB had a go at. I think it would be an abuse to discount any votes after the initial close - regardless the circumstances of the re-opening. I am familiar with the saga and, having opposed last night, have since advocated more than once that the RfC is now a severely compromised lame duck which should be closed and reopened with proper management and publicity. I suggested use of the watchlist notification area, which someone finally did last night. The authors behind this are harming their position with behaviour verging on WP:OWN. Closing now would give time to reflect and bring forward the same proposal on a clean slate. If I was closing this next week I would not be able to adjudicate on it. Leaky Caldron 15:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Inre Blueboar's response to my parenthetical in the RfC...I had elected (after some consideration) to forego a response there but this ensuing exchange has prompted a consideration which I'll pass along to you here.

...and that comment gives Blueboar a right to respond. Blueboar made a constructive suggestion and I do not think it was meant to be dismissive or disparaging.

Perhaps you may truly consider Blueboar's observation to an editor with some 6+ years editing experience here as a "constructive suggestion". My feeling is that were his comment, instead, directed towards you, you would rightly consider it to be condescension of the highest order. 'Nuf said. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Heya, I updated Wikipedia:The_Truth with a new section on Philosophers of The Truth incorporating the post you wanted to see added to an essay. Comments, thoughts, or flames? Sctechlaw (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

As an anthropologist, shouldn't you at least make note of the fact that "Sarek of Vulcan" is a male, and has been one for more than four decades? I say this, because on WT:V you refer to him as a "she" and it's a bit confusing. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, why are you insisting on keeping this factual error? If you read the original source, see the talk page for a link, one can see that the author states that others had the idea before him! None of the claims in the text is in the original source. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 17:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refactor this [7]. Whatever the provocation and however antisemitic a comment may appear you are not at liberty on Wikipedia to make a personal attack and assume bad faith. I would rather you refactored it yourself. --BozMo talk 18:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. All I said was that anti-wemites make lousy WP editors, which is true and not an attack and certainly not personal. Certainly WP should have no tolerance for its being hijacked to spread hate speech. That falls far outside the purview of the most passionate conflicts among good-faith editors we depend on. If you cannot see that line I feel sorry for that. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You can say that someone is wrong and misrepresents sources. You can say that the error is an AS error which demonises Jews. Implying clearly that they are de facto AS as well is a clear personal attack which fails to assume good faith (I am not bothered about the lousy editor bit). Anti-semitism doesn't flow from deep in the soul of children; it is taught by those around someone. ASites are misled. As with everyone misled the WP code is designed to promote understanding. Pity if that makes you sorry. --BozMo talk 23:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Implying clearly?" In English the word is "explicit." If it is "implicit," it is not clear. But let me be clear/explicit: to say without evidence that Jewish doctors knowing killed their gentile patients is a form of antisemitism, and to further say without evidence that this is the reason why Gentiles killed jews in the Middle Ages is a form of antisemitism. But all I pointed out on the article talk page is that to say these things when one has in front of them the evidence that this is not so is definitely antisemitism. I wish I could take your comments in good faith, but in this case the WP:DUCK is so big, it is way beyond me how you could not see it. Call it a drake or a mallard. If you want, you can call it a loon. But it sure aint's no swan! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein -- I have modified the third para of Social Anthropology to try to stem once again the conflation of Social and Cultural Anthropology. If you have time in the next year or so, I fear I might be making too much of a point or argument, and would appreciate your advice on this. Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdfischer (talk • contribs) 12:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Slrubenstein.

Would you mind taking a look at the discussion here? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have again tried to add an illustration to this article. See what you think. The article really should have some sort of illustration if possible, to help people through the jargon. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I believe that the A7 deletion of the Seamus (dog) should be overturned is that A7 is for lack of significance, not lack of notability. Wikipedia defines significance as a much lower standard than notability. Wikipedia's guideline for speedy deletion gives the following as grounds for an A7 speedy deletion: An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.... The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

This distinction between significance and notability is important because an article with a lack of significance can be immediately deleted by any administrator, whereas an article of questionable notability will be discussed on an AfD forum before it is deleted. You are correct that having 200,000 Google hits, and articles in major newspapers does not necessarily makes a topic notable, but it does make it significant, and that is why A7 should not apply here. Debbie W. 19:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point about the difference between notability and significance, and I agree with you that the distinction is important. But these also call for judgement, and in this case you and I seem to differ. But that is why it is important to have many editors involved in these discussions. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Billie Piper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belle de Jour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think I fixed it. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I was very impressed with this statement of yours. I had planned to write a Signpost opinion piece at some point about the problems of POV pushers, and I think your statement perfectly encapsulated one of the core reasons why there are disputes on articles like these. Thanks for writing it. Best, NW (Talk) 01:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi-- I've added a few comments to the talkpage for this article, and invite you to take a look. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO probably best to ignore this creationist and drop the "discussion" - he's itching to argue forever, and it will never make any more sense. Interesting article on Popper's take on evolution, though. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes - agree w/ your last, posted same time as mine here. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Slr, Check out this little article that I built today - made me think of you! Perhaps you can improve it. I'm reading Taussig now for a class and I am really beginning to understand the tradition you work in a lot better.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conjugal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 19:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Hello, Slrubenstein. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

A while back you asked if I was interested in contributing to the above. I demurred. However, I have now found it expedient to review the page and have noted the section "... Guideline... for administrators to... prevent or stop abuse..." at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. You may wish to hurry over there and yank it out as not being appropriate, or decide to join in on that page, or both, or neither (or something else). I thought I should let you know of my actions. LessHeard vanU (talk)

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Ludwigs2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Occam (talk • contribs)

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

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Talk:Jesus.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Talk:Jesus.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Talk:Jesus.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards,

Hi. When you recently edited List of officers and commanders in the Battle of Stalingrad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AOK 6 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here