This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | → | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 |
Hi. I read the info at the link you posted with the latest Barbara Bauer edit, and find it difficult to see that it quite applies here. At the time the sentence about the Google search result was written, it was easily verified by doing a Google search - in fact, the SWFA list was briefly #1 on some of the Google servers. This was reported in several comments on the Making Light site around May 27th [1]. Making Light was pretty much ground zero for the controversy at the time, and the thread made numerous mentions of the Googlebombing in progress, both explicitly and implicitly. Is it truly the case that these comments are inadmissible, and that Google itself was inadmissible at the time, in a factual claim about the Google search itself? The fact of the Googlebombing is not particularly in dispute; cf. several reverted article edits by (presumably, from context) Bauer herself [2] [3]. (The username Cannoliq matches Bauer's posted email address, the claims in the historical edits seem to match things said by Bauer elsewhere, and the anonymous IP edit is similar in some respects to the Cannoliq ones.) As of today, the SFWA list is the #3 result, which has been the case for several weeks at least in my personal experience. Right or wrong, the concerted effort of large numbers of people to link Bauer to the list in search results is a legitimate part of her notability, I think, as it speaks to the degree of rancor Bauer incurred, deserved or otherwise.
Perhaps I'm off base here, but it seems that the bar on some of the sourcing for this article is set impossibly high, beyond the reach of facts or common sense. See, for example, Jules' reply to your point about the Usenet dating. Can I perhaps persuade you to research this a bit further and offer guidance on acceptable sourcing for the specific circumstances? Several people have done extensive research on what was said where and when, but I'm a little unclear (as are others, most likely) on which if any such citations will pass muster, and why or why not. It also seems that pretty much everyone involved is heartily sick of edit wars and incivility, and consequently hesitate to do anything likely to unleash another round of unpleasantness. Thanks! Karen 05:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Avraham. I'm wondering how I can edit the "More info" box on the right hand side of this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox. I would like to add a new category to the five already listed on there. Thanks! QuizQuick 00:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not think so. There are undoubtedly Activist Zionists, but I do not believe that Zionism in-and-of-itself is activism. -- Avi 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
(I'd like if we continue the discussion in one page)
In the ArbComm case on the article, Arbitrator Fred Bauder has cited an earlier edit which added the article to the cat Category:Anti-Semitism as an example of "extreme bias". That is why I removed the Islam and anti-Semitism cat and similar links, they seem to be an attempt to make a POV comment on the phrase. Homey 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
See [6] Homey 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
While your edits can be viewed as biased, categories are a special item. For example Golan heights can legitimately be included in both the geography of Syria and Israel. Inclusion in a category does not signify a fact, only that information regarding a matter may be found there. Certainly there is information extant which paints discussion of Israeli apartheid as anti-Semitism. I think use of the term is mostly by the Western left, particularly South African, English and Israeli. Arabs, who are practitioners of segregation and discrimination themselves, are unlikely to take such a tack. Fred Bauder 20:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"I think the edits you made are disruptive and biased but not actually violations of policy. Categories are not information in themselves. Fred Bauder 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence does belong in that paragraph:
Physicians in "nearly half" of neonatal circumcisions "did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision." [7] TipPt 16:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
PS ... looks like Jakew dismissed the addition, calling it "excess detail." TipPt 16:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
With respect to Wiki and Circ's?
When you read explainations of jewish and islamic circ practices ... there's room for debate. Regardless, "requirement" is too strong for the majority, who don't even go to worship. "Rite" is the best word technically, but unfortunately it then reads religious rite (right?). TipPt 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Removing sock puppet accusation since I think I was mistaken about this. My apologies. SkipSmith 07:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Please try to use the revert feature of the navigational popups only in the case of blatant vandalism. Some of the edits you rolled back at Wikipedia are not vandalism, and a helpful edit summary would be useful to explain why you feel that their change is not necessary. Isopropyl 22:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Avi, have the arguments you've seen persuaded you that Ron's article is worth keeping? Would you consider withdrawing the AfD as you did with the Triple Nine Society? -- Michael C. Price talk 04:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope this won't be seen as a cheeky request, but I wonder if you would consider withdrawing the AfD against the Prometheus Society? I realise that the article is even more of a stub than the others, but being a stub is surely a reason for encouraging people to add to it, not to delete it? Just a thought. I should add, perhaps, that I'm not a member of the Prometheus Society. Whether this makes my request more or less appropriate, I'm not sure. -- Michael C. Price talk 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Question First of all, thanks for your help and work on the Prometheus article. Now, about Ron Hoeflin. I just received an email from him, and he offered to write a short biographical sketch for Wiki -- but only if your rules allow it. Do your rules allow him to write his own article? Am I allowed to take his sketch, edit and/or rewrite it and submit it as an article? I am an officer of two of his societies and for the purposes of this question, assume that I am his friend. (I believe I am.) Promking 15:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I've expanded it. Wrote about 600 words. Obviously its a first effort and can be expanded, corrected and improved... but it's a start. In case of vandals I've put a copy on my talk page. Thanks for your suggestion that we expand it. Promking 16:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Avi: Please read the attached request I received . Thank you. IZAK 07:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Need administrator help in Temple in Jerusalem
Hi Izak,
A user by the name of Biblical1 has completely rewritten the Temple in Jerusalem article multiple times, presenting some rather speculatve views of a few contemporary thinkers as objective fact and scholarly consensus. At this point, would it be possible for you or some other administrator to freeze the page and guide a discussion on the Talk page? Thanks, -- Shirahadasha 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Avraham : Thought you would be interested in the latest adventure that has started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism (perhaps you may want to join) and the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism. Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 12:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, if you are saying what I think you are saying about Category:High_IQ_societies, that it cannot be under more than one category, then you are mistaken. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories_do_not_form_a_tree. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.-- Tstrobaugh 19:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Avraham/Archive 4, thanks for supporting my
RfA, with a tally of 104/4/7...
|
for all the work you put in editing the Prometheus article to proper format. I especially admire that you did the work silently; anyone else would have boasted about it. I've tried to learn some of the format. I found some nice long articles with lots of references and clicked "edit" I didnt edit them of course, I simply observed the code that was used for references, etc. Promking 17:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop pushing POV - I think you will find that it fact it is YOU who are closer to the 3RR breach. Please coply with policy. Thanks. 86.27.55.184 21:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from pushing POV - it is against policy. Furthermore accusing aonther of bad faith is also contrary to guidelines. As an admin you should know better. Thanks. 86.27.55.184 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You two know better than this, sorry Avi but you did break WP:3RR in the article as well by having 4 non-vandalism reverts in a 24 hour period. That I see, 8 hour block. Jaranda wat's sup 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You're correct, I missed this: Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count. I cannot argue with the block. -- Avi 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I unblocked via your email that said you would avoid the article for 24 hours. The annon is still blocked. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 20:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Avi 20:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Avi, the vandal is back on Joe Lieberman with a registered account -- same edits. Sandy 02:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Avi, I'm not a vandal - I've never changed anything on the Lieberman wiki before. I just noticed an obvious error on the Joe Lieberman page. That is, Lieberman never checked into the Betty Ford clinic for a cocaine abuse problem. You can check this out - but it should be changed. Thanks. Bezalela 02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from vandalizing my userpage. It is apparernt that you have an agenda to push and continue to disregard Wikipedia's NPOV rule. I urge you to cease and desist with your blantant disregard for civil discussion and your "ownership" of articles. -- Oiboy77 17:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
"my dear Oiboy77"?? Please don't patronize me.-- Oiboy77 20:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, Oiboy it will be, -- Avi 20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:
Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists.
The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:
So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:
to which I received this rather off-hand reply:
which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".
Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!
-- Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Aren't I allowed to edit articles then? Please assume good faith and let me contribute without threatening me. 86.27.62.142 09:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Avi, chill, baby. I don't need an advocate. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 05:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
With these edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_rights_in_Israel&diff=68210563&oldid=68210173 Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Human rights in Israel. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ---- Oiboy77 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, what the hell are you doing? I'm editing the article, and I am adding the sources gradually. Why do you remove all of my edits? And the article itself is full of your edits, and as you're a Jew, it's full of your POV. Stop removing my edits. Although you're an administrator, you can not use your own view here. Hossein.ir 19:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Avi 19:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove the US aid part? It has some good sources. I'm adding it again, and with a LOT OF sources, it's unreasonable to remove it. -- Hossein.ir 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hossein.ir 19:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I had the same problem with a new administrator, and with giving plenty of sources, more than usuall, I could convince him. I should do this with you. Giving more and more sources.
--
Hossein.ir
19:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see the talk page of the 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. -- Hossein.ir 21:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reverting the vandalism on my talk page!-- 1568 06:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Avraham. I appreciate working w/ you. -- Szvest 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I am unsure as to why you wish to use American Dating in an article concerning a topic where International Dating is appropriate. See WP:MoS for guidelines on date format. -- Jumbo 21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know quite a few of the refs you added into this article don't seem to work properly.
AndrewRT
22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Scrap that it wasn't you!
GoldToeMarionette ( talk · contribs) had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by Jayjg ( talk · contribs) and Hall Monitor ( talk · contribs) blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Wikipedia policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.
Other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." [14]
Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Wikipedia Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am asking for your help to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. Thank you for your time with this request. RealTime 02:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
A disputed tag merely implies there is a content dispute. Looking at the recent history and the mediation-cabal case that appears to be fairly obvious. Addhoc 22:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not encourage Mike18xx; if you look at his history, it's pretty obvious that he is out to cause trouble. He is not above namecalling and baseless accusations, and has declared his (apparent) intention to ignore the three-revert rule. I see today he has progressed to advocating flaming of IP addresses. This is someone who needs HELP, but not helpful suggestions, IMO. I am the original author of the article; he is a pox on it, and I have already requested help in dealing with his negative contributions. Zephyrad 18:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why the quote you force is better than the one I prefer for the association position?
Why are individual doctors opinions relevant?
My prefered quote represents "Best Interests." Can't get better.
Here's the quote I prefer: "Best interests In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks - read more here. It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child. The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child’s best interests falls to his parents."
(TipPt .. forgot to logon)
This quote should be included in the upper section. "The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons advises that there is rarely a clinical indication for circumcision."
The whole statement is a "synopsis of the principles the BMA." I feel like most people don't make the distinction between religious and "hygiene" reasons when they read "Non-therapeutic circumcision" The mentioning of divergent doctor opinions (when it is non-therapeutic anyway) misleads the reader. Individual doctors opinions are not relevant to the association level principles.
Can I take out the first sentence? TipPt 01:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Avraham, I noticed you're reverting changes to a number of refs in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, claiming that the refs are being "killed". However, when checking the refs, I found they work fine after having been changed. Part of the problem is that a few users have recently started an almost full version of Template:Cite web in this and related articles, instead of the condensed version of Template:Cite news that has become the established template in these articles. In addition, these users insert the template in a line-by-line fashion instead of the recommended "stream" solution: {{cite web|url= |title= |accessdate= |accessmonthday= |accessyear= |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate=}}, usually which means that the page becomes very cumbersome to work with in edit mode (especially when people add 5-6 references after each other), as every section becomes a mile long.
Using the line-by-line mode is fine in other types of articles, where the number of references are limited, but in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict we already have some 140, when including those pointing to the same reference, and if all those would consist of eight lines instead of one, the article becomes 980 lines longer in edit mode!
The modified Template:Cite news looks as follows: {{cite news | url = | title = | publisher = | date = }}, however, the order of the items is usually thrown around {{cite news | title = | date = | publisher = | url = }}, as that is how the template finally displays it in the reference section irrespective of the order of the items. It is the ideal template for a developing story article which quotes newspapers, as there is no need to insert the name of the writer, coauthors and the date the news article was accessed.
The biggest problem with reference losses in these articles is the stupid practice by some to use the pointer form of the <ref name= XX /> command, i.e. you point to an existing reference simply by inserting [1], as that will only work as long as the reference starting with <ref name= /> exists, and in an environment where references quickly become obsolete and there are hundreds of people editing and re-editing, such pointers will quickly have nothing to point to. Using the <ref name= > is a good thought, as several references will point to one line, but in this environment even using the <ref name= > command is risky unless the name chosen is very unique, as two users may very well start two different references with for instance <ref name=BBC>, in which case the system will only display the first and point the second reference to it. Best regards 13:32, 13 August 2006 Thomas Blomberg
The citations were apparently condensed. You can find the full sourcing at Zar'it-Ayta al-Sha`b incident. Tewfik Talk 19:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I did specify my reasons in the edit summaries asking for clarification. Your recent edits were not clear, so my actions in removing such edits and requesting clarification is justified. -- Inahet 22:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I spoke with Voice of All and from what I understand, his bot can archive WP:RFP, so I don't believe it's necessary for us to archive it. Also, either way it's probably best for there to remain at least one case in the requests area so people know what a requested protection looks like. Thanks, though :D Cowman109 Talk 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, i didn't see it in the articles, but there was one qutoe where words where added to the end that made israel look bad. It was the nbc qutoe. But I hope your family is doing good, I support Israel because I realize what hezbollah, iran, and syria, and bascially most muslims want israel destroyed. So are you from israel? -- Zonerocks 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
No. but i visited for two weeks last year. -- Zonerocks 03:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of the 3RR rule, so it is not necessary to "warn me" when you think I am "getting close." Thank you though, I assume you are being genuine in helping to insure I am not unknowingly about to break a rule. Sarastro777 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your change to User:Primetime ( diff), you've put your comment between Ashibaka's signed comment and his timestamp (which moved below it). Try to move his timestamp back to the position after his sig, please. -- ADNghiem501 07:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The polls have closed. -- Zonerocks 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I'm adding factual information from a reliable source, not personal commentary.
Also, there is no consensus on the talk page, I have outlined my objections again and again. Deuterium 00:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Responded on your talk page yet again, if you can discern the truth inmy web of falsehoods, that is :D -- Avi 01:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Responded on your talk page. And accusations of lying are not appreciated :) -- Avi 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Responded on your talk page yet again, if you can discern the truth inmy web of falsehoods, that is :D -- Avi 01:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Check this very weird vandalism. If you ask me, this is worth a month's block. -- Daniel575 17:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick gramatical correction; it looked like a coma-splice sentence to me--until I re-read it. In the English language you can have 2 sentences "jammed" together into one (long) sentence; just use a semi-colon, not a comma. Some people forget that small rule, and simply use a coma. Take care. ProfessorPaul 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You may find the article Terrorists of Pakistani origin interesting. It may be deleted soon in perhaps a few hours.
If you have any views on having such articles on Wikipedia, please do share them at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terrorists_of_Pakistani_origin
-- Robcotton 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand why you deleted a Leonora Jakupi-image. It was a CD-cover. Please put it back.-- Noah30 18:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)