User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 19

User: Thatcher131 has asked that I ask you to take care of this.[1] It seems the mob has backed off -- at least that's what I'm assuming. Silly business -- all of it -- but at least the RfC on DBachmann is one good outcome.

It's an annoyance, but I'm actually glad Thatcher made the request. It's a reminder that I hadn't been to your talk space to formally thank you for being bold, taking a stand and doing what was right. So I'm taking the opportunity to do this properly: Thank you! The place could stand a few more admins like you -- and a few less like you know who. ;p Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good unblock, Slr..I agree with you, just to throw my two cents in.. Dreadstar † 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SL. I don't dispute what you said about Hayden, but maybe you should take a deep breath and just revert that whole section. I'm sure tha Ramdrake and I wouldn't care. You definately had me laughing, but I would hate to see the sensitive among us get their panties in a twist and go after you. Good luck! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a good laugh too, but maybe Kevin's right on this one, come to think of it. You decide.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do sometimes wonder why you continue to explain something way past the point where it is clear that you are not being listened to. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI that guy you were arguing with. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck in your efforts to continue to improve articles. A reasonable person is put into very comprising positions in wikipedia, especially in the high profile articles. I better appreciate that now. Keep up the good work. AikBkj (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say - great essay! - in this case I don't have a thing to say contrary(?!) - I think you did a superb job of getting at the philosophical/linguistic underpinnings of everything I was trying to say or thought you might be saying. I only hope you also feel that for what you wanted to say. (Its hard sometimes to put these things into words). Egfrank (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also thank you for your careful explanation of your thoughts. Personally, I think they are profound, true and of the greatest practical and "spiritual" benefit.

In particular, I take your point that Paul uses typical Greek categories explicitly to make an ontological distinction. And as you say, although the distinction is not without precedent in Law, Prophets and Writings, these are not ontological as in Paul.

While studying herem in the Hexateuch, I became pursuaded that the theological point of the war-herem was genocide. In the theological categories of the Torah, Abraham's decendents' multiplication is a blessing like that of Adam and Eve. Even in the Prophets, haShem's discipline will always leave a remnant. Why? Because, as he promised to Moshe, he would never remove the people who bear his Name from the Earth.

(PS by the way, I see no reason to suppose that Israel had more relish for the genocide of the conquest than Abraham had to sacrifice Isaac. In the canonical presentation, Israel were in fact reluctant about it, where Abraham was steadfast.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Haines (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the divine instructions regarding the conquest of Canaan do not provide all the details, there is sufficient to establish that haShem held the Canaanites responsible for rejecting him and piling sin upon sin.

As perhaps you can tell, I am rather captured by a Yahwist vision. What is the meaning of life? It is to embody the Holy One's presence ba'arets.

Returning to your comments regarding martyrdom. Personally, I think Christian martyrdom is wrong-headed. Although there is some NT warrant for the ideal, it says more of Greek and romantic notions than of NT teaching like that of 1 Peter, where suffering (not necessarily death) is expected to characterise those who would live to the glory of God.

It occurs to me that for every Christian martyr, there have perhaps been more persecuted Jews. No Christian witness to the Creator is ever perfect, has Israel ever pleased her God as being perfect in being a light to the Gentiles? I may be absolutely wrong, but I suspect, even if Christianity is true, God is testifying to his glory through his ancient and original people, according to his covenants of love, which can never be broken.

Obviously you and I would disagree on all sorts of things. However, I delight to hear the depth of wisdom and insight you and Egfrank offer on life, God, Bible, your own faith, and even your perspective on my own. Shalom Alastair Haines (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments on martyrdom. Yes, scientifically, social and psychological factors are involved with the decisions of the Christian martyrs that are not unique. It seems cold-hearted to reject their courage as evidence for a resurrection, but personally, I simply accept resurrection because it is logically consistant with what God could and may do if the rest of the Hebrew and Greek books are taken at face value.

But the rabbi you mention makes precisely the point that matters. Abraham's God is glorified when even gentiles call on him with sincerity that costs their lives. You phrase it very nicely, I will be watching for that comment while I read. It sounds like the sort of reference Lapide would cite.

Someone suggested Wikipedia talk pages are a more interesting encyclopedia of discussion on topics and debates within them, than the actual topic pages themselves. If nothing else, I suspect continued interaction there among our friends will indeed provide something of value to future readers. Though I'm keen to work for quality text in that article in the ordinary manner. ;)

The Song of Songs,

which is of Solomon.

May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth,

for better is your loving than wine.

I am being deliberately ambiguous about l'shlomo, I use a participle to translate the plural dodim.

Alastair Haines (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Thank you! As I was thinking about the translation, the for Solomon was going through my head. For the reasons you mention -- notoriously polygamous, the end of chapter 3, and a very natural rendering of the preposition l. It fits well within the context of the canon as well. It makes sense for the Bible to comment on Solomon.[reply]

But finally, another reason is that I've been reading literature reviews on dating, because I will be expected to have an opinion. In fact, my supervisor asked me and I simply said I just didn't know. He was actually approving, because it's a good thing to admit such things at times, and because my hypothesis does not depend on date anyway. However, I thought I'd make a bit more effort to form something of an opinion regardless. In just the last week or so, I've actually become open to the possibility that the song is not very distant in time from Solomon. If that were so, for Solomon would also make sense.

I will be watching attentively for commentators that read for.

My hypothesis, by the way, is that the Song is first and foremost about the Shulamite, and about the trials and joys of romantic love from a female perspective. I believe this is a natural reading, because she talks not only about the one she loves, but also about herself. She engages with the chorus (and the reader). The man, however, speaks only of her, and is definitely a dream on one occasion, probably more.

If one approaches the Song with the kind of questions teenage girls have about courtship and marriage, one comes away feeling "understood", "related to" and with some real answers -- it's not easy, it's frustrating, it's dangerous, it's worth it, don't push it, let it come to you, once you're there there's no way out, ... It doesn't say how to get Mr Right, it doesn't promise there even is a Mr Right, it just interacts with the issues in the kind of way women (of my aquaintence anyway) seem to like -- reflect their concerns in an understanding way, encourage, support and praise them as is appropriate.

I've got a long way to go to make my reading rigorous, I'm also handicapped by being a man, a never-married man, and middle-aged! ;) But then again, there are advantages in my perspective too, and I become more and more convinced that the Shulamite-stream-of-consciousness reading more adequately explains the various features of the Song than other readings.

For men, I think the point of the Song is -- be faithful to hearts that think and feel like this Shulamite. God stood as witness against the violence and divorce that Malachi's contemporaries perpetrated on their women.

So, you see, the reading of verse 1 that you offer me, fits very well indeed with my thesis, and feels like better reading of the Hebrew ... why use the relative pronoun in full and form a verbless clause, when a prepositional phrase alone would do for attribution?

Drat! Now my idea is in a public forum and someone else can publish it before me! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they still have to attribute it to you - public or not - its yours. Egfrank (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Big smile @ Egfrank] I'm probably naively relaxed about intellectual property regarding biblical interpretation. With my conservative view of divine inspiration, I see anything I may say as leaving an important "co-author" out of the acknowldgements — any errors being, of course, my own. ;) But, yes, I guess a Wiki talk page still classes as "personal communication". ;) When I get closer, I will give you both links to my dissertation. It's such a joyful book, I do hope that is not lost in what I do with it. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS @ Slrub [Grin] Yes, rather intimate, but said beautifully. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked to discuss your reversions on the talk page of Franz Boas but instead you have committed 3 reversions, without discussion, within a 24 hour period. Additional reversions will be reported as a violation of the three revert rule. See 3rr. Jim Bowery (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, the above was placed on your user page. I moved it here so you would see it. - Jeeny ^(talk) 22:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..is a she! :-) Egfrank (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific method#Pragmatic model The Tetrast (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I mean revolutions by something that goes round in circles...;) I just now jumped back into it after I saw them edit warring over the disputed policy section tag Cogden created especially for this particular dispute...the tag is long past its time and doesn't belong if it ever did. Tagging an official policy page section as being disputed seems to me to be the most ridiculous of things - fine for a mainspace section, but a policy page is a whole different animal...it's not policy if it's under some kind of official cloud. There was consensus for the current version and a few editors are insisting on it being changed - that just doesn't warrant a tag. If it were a truly disputed section not backed by consensus, the it should be removed, not tagged.

Well, thanks for letting me vent. You're always welcome to join back in, looks like there's some renewed vigor to get this thing done - one way or another.

Good to hear from you! Dreadstar † 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO policy should ever have a disputed tag. Disputed edits ought to be removed to the talk section for discussion until there is no dispute!! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks! I tried to explain it in some detail here, but I think SlimVirgin hit it very succinctly when she said that it destabilized the policy. No dispute tags on Policy pages...we should make that a policy...;) Dreadstar † 16:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be an appropriate short name for you? I tried "Slr" which looks like 'Sir"...maybe "Slrub"? Although that looks like shrub..looks nice anyway.....just checking to see what your thoughts are, Mr. Slrubenstein...;) You can call me "Dread" for short... :D Dreadstar † 19:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How should we handle this tag dispute? One editor suggested the protection be removed so the revert war over the tag could continue, and the other doesn't understand why those tags are bad on policy pages...and then makes some fairly skewed comments about consensus and what's happening, all in this section. What's the best way to address this? Dreadstar † 03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, about a year ago I nominated this article for deletion, I was a new user, and I didn't really "get" the idea that even fringe theories can have neutral articles. So, after that I worked hard to add information to the article so that it would give the whole picture and so that there would not be "undue weight" for the theories of Rushton and Jensen. My goal was to have those theories represented in proportion to their actual scientific prominence and degree of acceptance-- I still think the article is way out of wack, unbalanced, at times schizophrenic. So what should we do to move this article forward? The process is stalled and I don't know if it is worth my time or not to participle in Kevin's, piece by piece revision plan. Before the page was protected I had gotten the article to a state where I thought, with some pruning and smoothing it might make sense, but then everyone decided to merge the whole page and not much has happened since. People come by and complain, but none of these people participates in the revision process. I don't like the revision process because I think it is important to look at the article as a whole rather than section by section. I think we need a new approach. Do you have any ideas?

Also,I don't know if you know this but I've had to bring a case to Arbcom. It's really exhausting and I feel as though all kinds of people are getting involved and the whole thing is spiraling out of control. There is this one comment that implies that I've been responsible for "edit waring" at the race and intelligence article. I mean, have I? I don't even know anymore. I think I got a "warning" that I was on the verge of breaking 3RR about a year ago... but, I was new then, and I even apologized at the time, never even been warned since... so I don't know what this is all about or where it is going. They are talking about putting up some kind of "ban on sight policy" on "Race and Intelligence" --and it seems like I'm being blamed for the poor quality of the article, although indirectly. (Picaroon, won't give specifics.)

This is really stressing me out.

futurebird (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you position, but when one tries to bring this up people feel the topic is being censored. I have tried to compromise, and perhaps that is the problem. I think the key here, is the fact that when we group all of theses things together: that is when we put Rushton's theories in the same article as Steele's Stereotype threat research we're doing original research in the sense that we are saying that these views should be considered together. It implies that they are equally mainstream and this is simply not the case.

I'm not going to bother with the revision process anymore. What do you think of this proposal?

Let's not have an article on race and intelligence. Before anyone cries "CENSORSHIP" or anything of that sort let me explain. The views of Rushon and Jensen belong in their biography articles, or in articles on their books and papers and the controversies that they have caused. The views on race and its nature as a social construct belong in the articles on race, and the articles for the academics who holds those views. The discussion of test gaps belongs in the article in test gaps etc.

Our attempt to provide a summary of this topic as a summary has failed because it continues to result in an original synthesis of information, and because there is not a definitive position on the topic "race and intelligence" or even race and IQ.

My proposal is that we take the material in this article and move each item to its proper place so nothing is deleted and no information is lost and then delete this article.

I would love it if you would look at the arbcom case, any advice that you have would be more than welcome. I'm sorry to here that you're feeling down on the wiki at the moment. I've always respected you opinions.futurebird (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way in taking this position with Race and intelligence I feel that for the sake of consistency and honesty we might need to look at the article race and health (which is mostly my work) and consider if a similar approach is needed. So far, I've taken the position that these kinds of articles are fine, as long as they cover all of the possible interpretations, but I'll ask you if you think Race and heath] is also original research, or is there a difference in this combined subject? futurebird (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, I noticed your comment about being at a low point with Wikipedia at the moment. I feel the same, I feel we just keep going round in circles and am struggling to work up any enthusiasm for editing. I seem to spend most of my time on talk pages repeating myself. I've been thinking about the email you sent me regarding the race article and I think you're right. I have cut back a lot on my Wiki time over the last several months, and had originally assumed that the spit of the race article had been thoroughly debated and that there was a consensus for it. If you want to have a go at reconstituting it to a proper article then I will support you 100%. I think it's like this; if we allow the article to be split up, then really we end up with the same situation as with the plethora of R&I articles we had recently. We have a set of relatively incoherent articles which are all really pov-forks. On reflection I also agree that it is very important to keep all of this information together to make it coherent. I have had so many bad experiences on article talk pages over the last year or so that I try inordinately hard to debate and explain my position etc. so as to avoid conflict, obviously this is time consuming and mostly fruitless. I wonder if we should start an RfC on the race article and try to make a case for getting it put back together? The worst that can happen is that we don't succeed after all, and at least we get the opportunity for a proper debate, which I know you feel was missing during the slit of the article. What do you think? You know your contributions here are greatly admired and you are very much respected by me and many other users. All the best. commie scum 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the split seemed like a good idea, that is I supported the creation of a redirect page so that race (as in footrace) would not get buried... but it has become a content fork! Race and genetics and "social race" or whatever it is called need to be merged. The article on race and genetics is in dire need of work, I don't know if all of the information on it is really even talking about race-- This is the problem that keeps coming up. Articles about populations clusters, and mainstream genetics get hopelessly commingled with semi-mainstream work that talks about the loose and imprecise relation between self-identified race and genetics, then trends that appear on a racial level-- which are directly attributable to socially constructed race: things like health, intelligence etc- are pinned on genetics. It's a paper chain of original research and only a few fringe theory guys support it-- but the treatment in the wikipedia makes it appear more legitimate and more mainstream that it actually is.

I think that the general idea should to be to "avoid the paper chain"

I almost want to write a policy page WP:Avoid the Paper Chain

To be honest I'm feeling worn out right now, but I'll start reading after my math finals are over and see if I can help in any way. futurebird (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be annoying about these things but "You do not seem to know much about anything relevant to this article and have nothing to contribute. " That's over the top. You should strike it, as it's not really helping the debate. I mean even if this guy is being frustrating. Patience-- channel some inner peace. OOOOhm... that's my 2 cents. futurebird (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you close the AfD page for 'R&I in US', I have no idea how to do that and not home at the moment (public pc). Thanks and ciao, Brusegadi (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

)

Have you voted? Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding twin studies - what do you think of this? Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and nice to catch up. Just a brief note - I think this edit needs a sig added.

See you soon on some article or other. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, now that we have the Race article back in it's full form, do we need to keep the article Race debate? It just repeats a lot of the info in the original article. Alun (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added the following comments to the RFC talk page. Would it be possible to address them? Thanks. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC description section currently contains the following statements:

The trigger for this seems to have been his editing of pages related to the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church), an area he works in a lot. While his work on these articles is appreciated, his attempts to change the NOR policy to make his reliance on early Church sources more appropriate has become problematic.

However, evidence in support of these claims appears not to have been provided. The diffs provided are based on edits to WP:NOR and its talk page. Would it be possible to provide specific diffs identifying edits to LDS articles that are perceived as inappropriate to support the above claims? These claims strike me as particularly strong, and particularly relevant to the allegation that User:COGDEN's edits and discussions were not based on good faith, yet there doesn't seem to be any supporting evidence provided. I do not believe it is appropriate to make such allegations without providing specific supporting evidence. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm quite happy with the sections about molecular biology in the Race article. I've just had a little edit of the "clines" section, hopefully to clarify a few things regarding clinality and classification. I still want to have a look at the "Populations" section. I might have a go at the subspecies sections as well in the near future depending on time constraints, I'd like to introduce some discussion about phylogenetics and might rename the section something like "Race and taxonomy". I'm going to take a backseat for a little while at the "Race and intelligence" talk page because it's distracting me from the "race" article, where I feel I can do some more actual editing and possibly more good. The Race and intelligence article has several people all more or less saying the same thing, Futurebird, Ramdrake, yourself and me, so I don't think I need to be spending as much time there as I am. All the best. Alun (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Slrubenstein! Sorry for the delay in my reply. Done some stuff - not much... Was there some particular issue you had in mind? And remember, English is not my first language...! The Ogre (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there Rubenstein, can you send me the exact quote if possible about Boas, himself, supposedly claiming he did not identify himself whatsoever as a Jew ? Epf (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:AGF. You said a citation was needed, and I provided it. By the way, learn to spell the man's name correctly. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I want a direct quote showing explicitly him saying such. You can't just post a random quote without verifying it. Epf (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I want you to assume good faith, and show the minimum amount of respect to a fellow editor and one who knows much more about you on these topics, as is evident from my contributions. I am neither your teacher nor your therapist so I cannot undo whatever damage has made it impossible for you to understand simple facts or to treat others with basic courtesy. Alas, I will have to accept not geting what I want. And you will have to accept Wikipedia policies. You asked for a citation and I provided one; that is what I need to do to comply with policy. And I defy you to prove that I posted a random quote. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Assume good faith ? What place does that have in a scientific discussion or in an encyclopedia that values verifiability above all else ? You are required to verify all that you can regarding source material, especially when it is requested by other users. You arrogantly and honestly think you are "...one who knows much more about" me "on these topics..." ? You are claiming this from what, your own contributions, but when one compares them to mine or our discussions, you can see this is not the case. Most of your contributions would seem to easily take away what credence and neutrality you have in these topics. The fact you consistently resort to personal attacks when invovled in these discussions not only shows your immaturity and "lack of courtesy", but your own lack of understanding. You are ignoring the facts and refusing to acknowledge another, quite valid point of view. You posted quotes to back up a statement, yet refuse to provide me with the exact, detailed text. Why ? Did you even read or do you even have the text you are referring to ? If not, then did you just find the information of a source that relates to the material, and claim it supports your statement ? You are evidently the one who is in need of accepting Wikipolicy, and perhaps a "teacher" or "therapist" as you would seem to advise. Epf (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I even provided you with the link, and you still do not know what place AGF has? So you are lazy to boot, but i already knew that. Now, what other point of view and I ignoring? I thought this was about providing a citation for a statement, not acknowledging some point of view. So what point of view are you referring to? In any event, your continued hysterics fail to pursuade me of anything. You said I posted a random quote. Prove it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Link ? What link and to which source ? I'm lazy to boot ? What are you talking about ? The other point of view you're ignoring would be, umm, mine (I figured that would be obvious for you), but that is regarding other issues we had. Wow, you label anything that challenges your views as "hysterics", your ignorance and lack of understanding grows by the second ! I suppose the quote was not random, but you fail to provide me with direct text stating what you claim in the article. I did not anticipate my reply would persuade you of anything, since even if it were my intention, it would appear no one is capable of doing so. Epf (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Assume good faith ? What place does that have in a scientific discussion or in an encyclopedia that values verifiability above all else ?" I wrote, "I even provided you with the link, and you still do not know what place AGF has." Now, if you cannot figure out what link i am referring to, you are even dumber than I thought. As for POV - please read, perhaps more slowly. I did not ask whose point of view, I asked what point of view? You seem to think I am acknowledging one point of view, and that is true, by providing the citation to Cole that Boas did not identify himself as a Jew, I am providing the view that Boas did not identify himself as a Jew. What point of view are you referring to? By the way, if you want to change the subject to whose point of view, the point of view I am providing is Boas's, according to Cole. It is not my view, because editors should not put their own views into articles. i realize that this is hard for you to understand since all you ever do is push your own personal point of view. I am glad you came right out and admitted it here, that you just want to represent your own view. Honest - but a violation of Wikipedia policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You continue to make obviously unfounded personal attacks and prove just how little intellectual validity you posess in this matter. You continue to confuse here and you did not post any link whatsoever to any Wikipolicy on "Assuming Good Faith". I am obviously aware of this policy, but Wiki itself admits that it is secondary to verifiability (the basis for any encyclopedia). Do you honestly need me to specify "what point of view" I was referring to ? I was referring to not only this disagreement over a quote, but to our numerous other disagreements on other source material and text. With regards to the quote about Boas "not identifying as a Jew", I want you to provide me with the exact, direct text from the source you claim to support this notion with. If you can not do this, then you can not say that you have material supporting your statement. "It is not my view, because editors should not put their own views into articles" - if only you heeded this statement of yours and acted in such a manner, too bad this is not the case. "I am glad you came right out and admitted it here, that you just want to represent your own view" - I did not say this whatsoever and you AGAIN re-word and misinterpret my statements. Your belligerence is becoming almost intolerable, how old are you ? I am going to remind you one more time about Wikipedia:No personal attacks which you have consistently violated with insulting comments. Continue to do so and you will be reported. Epf (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"you did not post any link whatsoever to any Wikipolicy on "Assuming Good Faith"." Another lie. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I still don't see a Wikilink to it, but whatever. Look, let's just drop this and agree to disagree for now. The only thing that annoys me is the groundless insults. I mean why is it that every time I have a discussion with you, you have to resort to this ? Perhaps there would be less misinterpretation of each other without it. Ciao, Epf (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't violate the 3RR, but this is far from over. I'm not going to allow you to misinterpret and inaccurately represent quotes and information on these articles. You know you have no validity in our argument regarding these articles, yet you persist on entering your own biased POV sentences. We have discussed this and there seems no getting through to you because you know you are at fault here, but do not wish to admit it. All that is left it would appear is for us to edit. Till next time. Epf (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit complies with NPOV, your edit pushes your own POV. Get over it. I defy you to provide any evidence that my edit misrepresents or misinterprets anything. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting you say that since I already pointed out various occasions, as is shown on the talk pages for both articles, where you did misrepresent, misinterpret and inaccurately enter quotes and sources. Your edits do not comply with NPOV, and you are the one who is pushing your own POV by not recognizing something so obvious. Enough with the pretending and perhaps you should get involved in studying how to be scientifically unbiased. You yourself appear to need time to both learn and mature. Do not resort to personal attacks, stick to the issue. Epf (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bluster all you want - repeating your assertions do not make them true. I asked you to point it out and you don't, because you cannot. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I honestly can not believe you just claimed, again, that I have not pointed them out. I did, several times, on both Talk:Kinship and descent and Talk:Ethnic group, especially the latter. You never acknowledged or admitted to the claims when they were pointed out to you, you merely ignored them. You also continue to enter information inaccurately and through your own biased POV on the ethnic group article. You are not fooling anyone and you aren't getting away with this ridiculous behaviour. Epf (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More empty bluster, no surprise. Yaddah yadah yaddah. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• More ignorance and little thought into an intelligent reply, no surprise here either. Epf (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have yet to provide any reply to my question, let alone anything intelligent, there really isn't any other comment I can make. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have provided replies and you can view them for yourself on those talk pages. I have pointed out extensively the instances where you did not enter quotes accurately, and only through your own opinionated statements, especially on the ethnic group article. You yourself never replied or admitted to the infractions then, so I dont't expect you to do so now. Epf (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slrubenstein - if you're unaware, you've been mentioned in a Wikiquette alert, which may be found [2]. Having looked at the diffs provided by User:Epf, I've concluded that you're both behaving uncivilly towards each other. I've suggested to him, and I'll suggest to you, that the simplest solution to this problem is to simply adopt a policy of civility in dealing with one another. Does this strike you as viable? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your note to Epf was a very positive step. That content dispute you're having is a bit beyond me; are there any editors involved besides you two? Do you think a WP:RFC or a WP:THIRD might help resolve it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that we're dealing entirely with offline sources? If any are online, it may be possible to bring non-expert editors in to help achieve consensus. But if there's straight disagreement over what an offline source says, I agree that it's tricky. Best of luck, in any event. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SR, you're welcome and Merry Christmas. I do celebrate it, albeit heretically. Leadwind (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal beliefs are probably not relevant to your life, but I will take this opportunity to say that I'm a big fan of Jesus. I have some idea that we share this fact in common, but if not, OK. Leadwind (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SR, whether you or I consider BE an apostate is tangential. It's the viewpoint of lots of the active Jesus editors, and I am comfortable working in that idiom, if I need to. He is, if the word means anything, an apostate. Let's confront the issue head on. Leadwind (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A B Pepper (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 97.88.205.124 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Happy christmas Slrubenstein, sorry to bother you with this but I have a weird case for you. There was an IP (User:97.88.205.124) making out-of hand reverts on Feminism and Women's suffrage. Reinserting info that was removed a) because it was sourced to a blog and b) for undue weight - both of these pieces were added by different IPs. I looked at 97.88.205.124's contributions, and the article range is bizarre: Mennonite‎; Feminism‎; Southern Baptist Convention‎; Christian views about women; Women's suffrage; Anabaptist.

However it reminded me of a user called A B Pepper who trolled these pages and launched a number of personal attacks against, myself[3], User:Afaprof01[4][5], User:Sxeptomaniac‎[6] and User:C.Logan[7] and was at least incivil to User:Orangemike[8]

Durova blocked A B Pepper for a period of 3 months for this behaviour in September 2007.

Now if you look at the people this IP reverts (without good reason): there's me[9] [10]; Orangemike[11][12][13]; C.Logan [14][15][16]; and Sxeptomaniac[17][18][19]. Looks to me like this IP is stalking and trolling the contribs of users that A B Pepper doesn't like. I'm very much inclined to think along the lines of WP:DUCK and say this may in fact be A B Pepper using an IP to block-evade. I'd be very much obliged if you'd take a quick look at this--Cailil ^talk 16:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS this new IP is from the same region (Missouri) as the other IP A B Pepper used as a sock-puppet: User:75.132.95.79--Cailil ^talk 16:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Slrubenstein. I've just filed that WP:RFCU. If you wouldn't mind please keep an eye on Christian views about women. This IP is making a lot of comments here - and it was A B Pepper's primary trolling ground previously.--Cailil ^talk 19:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually SLR this guy is escalating. He is stalking a number of editors now[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][ and has attack another user[31]. The RFCU is here Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/A B Pepper but I have no doubt He's here to make a point rather than build an encyclopedia--Cailil ^talk 21:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this to ANI (here). The checkuser came back as "possible"--Cailil ^talk 18:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was never a checkuser. Durova^Charge! 23:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC) ÑThanks for clarifying that. Be that as it may, since you blocked the person once, I think it is prudent for Calil to seek the assitance of another person for the next step. Spread the burden nd all that. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not an administrator anymore either. So all I could do is write a report, and a lot of people don't look favorably on that lately. Cailil writes excellent reports himself. Best regards and happy holidays. Durova^Charge! 23:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should summarize McClellan's and Draper´s explanations and not quote them. Also, as an administrator you should know that canvassing is not encouraged. -- Vision Thing -- 20:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the policy prohibiting quotes. Also, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adamic language. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. 83.5.2.220 (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a hypocrite. I had the talk page open from before you added your comment, and I didn't think to refresh it. My bad. I would have revised my comment, but I don't think you can do that on Wikipedia. Again, I'm sorry. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think it's reasonable to call the Spanish Explusion "genocide". I think that's a dilution of the term which actually takes away from the horror of the actual genocide which the Nazis tried to carry out.

The quote you cited doesn't fit the expulsion:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

If they intended to destroy us, why let any of us leave?

killing members of the group;

While they did kill many of us during the Inquisition, it's clear that they thought they were killing Christians who were backsliding. In this case, intent is not a matter of debate.

causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Are you contending that the "mental harm" piece here is enough to justify the label of genocide?

deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Physical destruction is not the same as cultural damage.

imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

This never happened.

[and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

This one item, I'll buy. There were cases during the middle ages of Christians stealing Jewish children and raising them as Christians. But it was done piecemeal, and not on a national basis. I don't think you can claim a general policy of this.

I'm not trying to be a pain here. I just think that they've committed enough atrocities without accusing them of ones they didn't commit. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I feel pressured into it. There's room for legitimate disagreement, and while I disagree, I don't feel as strongly about it as you seem to. I am worried that using the term "genocide" in that way will dull its edges a bit, but I can see your POV. Despite the way Bikinibomb and Tim are trying to paint me as unwilling to compromise, there's a place for it. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, s/he probably is just another anti-Semetic troll. But giving him/her the proper warnings is best way to get him/her either A. banned or B. start contributing constructively. I doubt that B will happen though, so I hope we'll eventually be able to get rid of him/her for good. Asarelah (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing wikipedia has led me to conclude that the ones to watch out for are those who don't care about being labelled an antisemite. As long as people think the label is offensive there is hope. Have a Happy New Year.

Telaviv1 (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of ideas. I've extended the good faith assumption till i was blue in the face and even defended Lisa yesterday on another subject. And we're right back to the vandalism and an AfD. I can't keep fighting this. There just isn't enough time to fight the destruction. In a few keystrokes months of work was being eliminated, and now there's an admin puppet on board. I'm not sure if Wikipedia is really capable of NPOV, seeing the power Lisa's had pushing her own POV. I'm on the verge of throwing up my hands and walking completely away from this, unless someone has a better way to keep things sane.Tim (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only originality of the page was the format. These definitions, conotations, and obfuscations were all floating independently out there. Christians say watermelons are red on one page. Jews say they are green on another. Messianics say they have black seeds. Putting them side by side is neither synthesis nor OR. The neutral column could have possibly been seen that way, but it was eliminated by Egfrank in the last debacle. Although I'd be sad to see the glossary go, to activity here has been so obnoxious that I wouldn't be sad to be free of it. I really wish Lisa wasn't publically identifying herself as a Jew with that kind of activity. It's harmful to us as a whole.Tim (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. I will try to be less cryptic in the future. It was addressed to you as a response to what Liftam had said. I think he is letting his anger get the best of him, : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you felt dissed, that wasn't my intention. I didn't look at the timestamp (and don't follow them too well anyway), I thought it was from earlier - and also that it was continuing a line of discussion that wasn't necessarily contributing to the future of the article. I can restore it, or you can, if you like. Avruchtalk 20:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine. My only concern is that comments directed at editors rather than at the article do more harm than good on the article talk page at this point (which constantly gets filled up with people attacking and debating eachother). If I were you, some of the longer comments about editor behavior I might have posted on the talk pages of the concerned users. Avruchtalk 20:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote:

If you'd been willing to consider ways of resolving this without holding onto that table, and the OR, POV and UNDUE that it created, much of this unpleasantness could have been avoided. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim replied:

I tried to avoid you. There just wasn't any way to do it.

I'll grant the assumption of good faith when it comes to you. Perhaps you just didn't notice this. But Tim wrote that, and then he wrote this:

you can't be trusted

Do you think that's a legitimate form of discourse on Wikipedia? Or are you so intent on avoiding strife that you're willing to ignore abuses from Tim to do so? -LisaLiel (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that you keep saying that "assuming" good faith means seeing it even when it's clearly not there. "I don't think that word means what you think it means". Assuming means taking that view in the absense of evidence to the contrary. Such as a chazaka, in Jewish law. But a chazaka is overruled by evidence to the contrary (the degree and type of evidence needed depends on the degree and type of the chazaka, of course), and so is an assumption here. Tim has made it abundantly clear that he intends to remain hostile to me. Well, I don't need him to like me, and I can understand why he'd be annoyed that what he tried to do didn't work in the end. But if he continues to post abusively, I will report him, and he will get banned. And quite frankly, you'd be spending your time better trying to get him to stop than trying to get me to ignore it. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was intended to be my last communication with Lisa.

And the page is toast. No longer in violation like this morning, but still toast. It now has "Christian Bible" as shared and controversial. You and I know that's true because of the table, but what the heck is a typical reader to make of it? It's gibberish to someone coming to it cold. Also "Christian" is a shared term with the same meaning as "believer in Jesus"? Really? That's the denotation, but not the conotation. Lisa herself (and plenty of Jews, including one of my best friends and my Rabbi and also Aryeh Kaplan) makes that slip, saying "Christian" when "Gentile" is meant. Shittuf is hanging there. Trinity is a Christian term. Sure. But when Jews use that word they mean Shittuf instead of Trinity. When Shittuf is defined for a Christian he thinks "Jehovah's Witness" instead of the Trinity.

The whole point of the table was a quick parallel glossary. Imagine three Wikipages. One a Christian glossary, one a Jewish one, and one a Messianic one. Or imagine two if you wish. Then put the same list of terms on those pages and have the members of those religions define them using sources and examples. The definitions will NOT be the same.

THEN put those two pages side by side so a Wikipedia editor can see when there are differences. Then the editor can make sure he uses words that are understood in the same way by all audiences.

As I said, the current page isn't untrue, but only those of us who've been there know why. For the Wikireader -- it's just some list.Tim (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim I do not care. You are repeating yourself when you said it was "over." make up your mind: it is over or it is not. But I am not going to argue with you over the page. If you want to argue, go someplace else.Slrubenstein | Talk 23:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I WAS WRITING THIS BUT GOT BUMPED BY YOUR LAST EDIT

You're very gracious. Thank you. Also, you're an excellent peacemaker.

I know that you restored the truncated page. I understood why. I didn't like it, but I understood. You were trying to reach some kind of peace and salvage something. Save 10% or lose 100%. It was the right choice on your part.

And I hope I encounter you in the future. You're one of the right things about Wikipedia.

Best.Tim (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add "annoyed" as a qualifier to "gracious."