![]() | 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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 |
Hi. I attended Prozdor, the JTS Hebrew high school. I considered the joint JTS-Columbia program, but I never followed through with it. I grew up a few towns over from Westbury. Small world, isn't it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, I placed the comment below at the Jesus Talk page last Oct 23. You might not have seen it because you were paying attention to many other things. Hope you can discuss your reasons. Historyprofrd (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up...I'm not sure which way I'll go on this (or even if I'll vote at all) as my opinion on the article had changed by the end of the AfD. I honestly thought that towards the end of the AfD and the various ANI threads that people were starting to take things personally and arguing from personal POVs instead of policy, and while I abhor anti-semitism in every sense of the issue, I do think that the article was showing itself to be worthy of inclusion, especially as it was shaping up towards the end. I don't think we should become a sounding board for anti-semites, nor do I think that we should allow antisemitic activity, but I'm not as sure about the article's tone as I was when I nominated it. Frmatt (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Message added 19:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Crafty (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you'd consider making your stepping away a bit more retroactive. I'm going to only ask that you remove your notices of the DRV that you posted to the last 3 editors, whom you weren't already discussing the issue with otherwise. Despite not having left further comment, it still violates WP:CANVAS to post notices of a discussion to specific editors whom you know beforehand will argue for a certain side. Please consider this. I'm not looking to start up another fight. Equazcion (talk) 18:57, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)
Comment Why is is that every few days wikipedia seems to be on the verge of collapse? Is it because of absurd and unreasonable episodes like this, presumably designed to test the limits of this encyclopedia? Perhaps we are guilty for not having taught people properly at university. But, then again, perhaps some of these people haven't even been to university. Mathsci (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I think User:AFriedman created the two titles as simple redirects which can never become articles in their own right. He She mentioned this at the deletion review. Mathsci (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You might be interested in the continuing discussion about Noleander on my talkpage. Crafty (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
You chaps are more than welcome to continue the discussion on my talkpage. I think it's notable that the conversation over there has been particulary civil. Crafty (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
hi, we would like some help here, if you can help as an administrator. there is a wikpedia page David Lichtenstein and David would like the page removed from Wikpedia. is there any way to get this done? he just wants his privacy, he is a private person and doesn't really want so much fanfare about himself. there is already a wik page about the Lightstone Group which already has most of the information on it, David's page is really just a duplicate. if need be we can incoporate some of the info and put it on the Lighstone page, but does there have to be a separate page for him? can you please help? thanks Thetrueword88 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I changed "a set of beliefs and practices" to "a religion" and you changed it back. First of all, per any dictionary in the world, "a set of beliefs and practices" IS the definition of the word religion. I'm NOT changing the meaning of the article whatsoever. I'm just making it more uniform with the Christianity and Islam articles and therefore more user friendly. However, in your edit you said that, "not everyone views it as a religion." Uh, what are you talking about exactly? Judaism IS one of the oldest religions in the world, that's just a fact. It's a religion just the same as Christianity and Islam and Buddhism and Neo-Paganism are religions. The reason America is a Judeo-Christian society is because Judaism and Christianity are the two main religions that have historically been practiced, and have greatly influenced, this country [America]. All the religions I just mentioned have religious texts that are easily identifiable (such as the Qur'an, Old Testament, Poetic Edda, etc.). I'm sure your edit was in good faith, but I just figured I'd let you know why it was a little off. Cheers. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 01:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for your message. I notice that this article is being edited by several SPAs. Thanks to WMC, Muntuwandi is also now back. And one of the more problematic admins has now become involved. Since I'm actually very busy in real life with academic matters, I will not participate in this mess. I am absolutely against using media articles in this topic. Mathsci (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. You claim to reverse to a consensus version, but you are mistaken. Check for yourself. I have told you this a few times already. In any case, if you revert again without seeking consensus on the talkpage of Judaism, I will have to report you. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Forgot the link, though! Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I responded to you on my talk page, but I do not wish to continue the conversation here, there or on any other talk page or entry. Please feel free to read my response but please do not respond on my talk page. If you really feel like you have to please do so and delete it afterwords as I did with my response. Good luck with the entry.PelleSmith (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
There is still an unanswered question in Talk:Judaism#Lift_protection, keeping up the unprotection of this article. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Sl, of course I believe you are sincere. As I said a couple of times, those operating from within a paradigm reject generic terms that would make their religion just one among many. ONLY a sincere person would do this. Sincere Christians reject the term "religion" for their faith, and sincere Jews do the same.
No religion is "just a religion" any more than you or I would be "just a male" or "just a Jew." There is always something unique.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to help, but I'm over-committed with RL projects right now. Maybe in the next few weeks I can lend a hand. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Check out discussion at United States talk page. It's me, a human being morphing into a bold being. All your fault.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! My name is Reubzz and I have opened up this mediation cabal case that lists you as a party. Please indicate your acceptance of the mediation process on my talk page and on the case page so we can move quickly towards discussion and resolution of the dispute. The proceedings cannot start unless ALL parties agree to accept the mediation process.
Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Slrubenstein. You recently (re)moved a section from the R&I Mediation page, but I don't see where you moved it to. I'd like to respond, but I don't know where. Could you indicate where you're moving this to so the discussion can continue? Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The mediation case has now opened. Please post your Opening Statement here: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence.
Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for suggestions. I have my own plans though they are affected by the intro in Judaism because often its 'square 1' as it were for a lot of articles.
I was under impression I stepped into encyclopaedia editing, and not a minefield.
Encyclopaedias, as I mentioned in edit summary, require internal consistency not just within the article, but across the breadth of subject matter the individual articles fall into, in this case monotheism.
If what I edited was wrong, then I would suggest that the articles on Christianity and Islam also require their introductions re-edited, and monotheism requires complete rewrite.
Or to put it another way, don't let the tail wag the dog...
Cheers--Meieimatai? 22:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I need you to sign your agreement to the groundrules here for your opening statement to be accepted. Reubzz (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Richard Lynn has published another gem inversely linking "g" scores and the belief in God... [1]. Gee!--Ramdrake (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion is about teleology in a sense, but the direction which survives in modern word use, at least in the sciences, is a broad one, and not necessarily metaphysical: evolution is not just "change" but NORMALLY change between two clearly defined points, a starting point and an end point. (Not just any points, because notice how evolution also has an opposite "devolution".) Saying "gill-like structure" implies that you know the structure is ancestral to a gill, and if we are talking about a fossil or embryo you might indeed know this. So indeed yes, putting the word "partial" in shows this more clearly. It shows that evolution implies that you can be stuck between the two points. Saying a "partial change" does not make much sense unless you ALSO define an end point. In this sense, "evolution" is normally something more like "develop" than just "change". Historically what happened is that the word evolution entered biology before Darwin, when people were already thinking about the possibility that species might change. So now we do see that evolution can have a meaning which is simply "change" without ANY direction at all, but this is because biologists originally brought the word in "wrongly". Does any of this make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding me. Evolve is a verb. It is used in several ways, as are many words. The technical meaning in biology has a confusing history, and this leads to even trained biologists using it two ways. See the examples I gave on the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
After perhaps 4 days on the Talk:United States page, one (anonymous) editor liked the idea, but two more prominent editors didn't; there didn't seem to be much interest either. Combined with your view against it (making three editors opposed), I'm not planning to pursue the idea any further due to no interest. But if you find other ideas for encouraging the retaining & motivating of editors which may attract more interest in the community, please let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll look for this book soon. In Brazil the conception of race is really different from the one in the United States. What matters here in the skin color or color pigmentation. Give your opinion and contribute for the subject, please. Opinoso (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Seriously yes! I don't know if I am speaking for Xavs [my nickname for the new mediator, :) ], but I am feeling overwhelmed by the sheer mass of your (everyone's) posts. No wonder you got to 74 archives so fast! I am considering imposing some form of limitations for everyone's sake, and because I believe long drawn out speeches will only make it more difficult for us to evaulate the situation. Reubzz (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Your first two questions are frankly insulting, and seem to ignore Noleander's previous statements. That's why you haven't gotten answers.
No, he doesn't. You haven't gotten an answer to this because it's an oversimplification of everything that's been said up until now. Noleander said he felt there was a suppression of certain content. There's no reason to assume he therefore thinks all AfDs are censorship attempts. If you told me to stop parking my car in front of your driveway, and I countered that by asking you "So you think all parking should be banned?", that's not constructive. It either means you haven't been listening, or you're playing a rhetorical game.
As should be obvious from Noleander's comments up until now, he doesn't believe his articles were anti-semitic. So, what's the point of asking this? Answering the question, especially saying "no" to it, could carry the implication that he agrees on its relevance. Your asking of this question to begin with already makes an insulting assumption of relevance to the situation. Equazcion (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
hi Slrubenstein i might be just stupid but i still don't understand Franz Boas's understanding of culture. tell me about him "like i'm a child". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.101.72 (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, I couldn't help putting in my tuppence's perspective on the rename proposition. Oh -- and I'm not Jewish, but I have a great-grandfather who was.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
hi Slrubenstein
i might be just stupid but i still don't understand Franz Boas's understanding of culture.
tell me about him "like i'm a child". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.101.72 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
As for protection, I was under the impression only administrators could do that - yes?
As for the spark, I have made a comment on it below the heated discussion. I just looked at your Archive 14 on your talk page. Dear Jimbo! (lol) - this has gone on forever!
Lastly, I told Stevevertigo not to make edits or intervene on the main R+I talk page to the actual article. However, I'm curious as to your sharp objection to him ?? - note though he is not being included at this point, nor plans to include him are made. Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
After reading some of your talk archieves, I've seen that the r+I conflict has gone on forever. It appears there was a big flare up nearly 3 years ago in 2007. As far as dispute resolution is concerned, could you provide me a short history of attempts to resolve the issues? Thanks :) Reubzz (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to inform all parties in the MedCabal case involving the article Race and Intelligence, that the deadline for any final comments in this introductory stage of mediation is due within the next 24 hours. At the end of this timeframe, the Mediators will seek page protection for 48 hours to review the entire case and prepare a schedule of issues to discuss to proceed forward. Thank You for your cooperation and acting in good faith to pursue a conclusion to this dispute. Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying but you are missing some crucial points. First consensus was ALREADY gained on the Judaism article.
You are the only one who keeps changing the article. Everyone else agrees with the edit I made. Second, you keep talking about what YOU believe and your OPINIONS.
Here on wikipedia, opinions do not matter. I'm sorry, it's just that simple. It clearly says on the Judaism article, "For consideration of ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jew." It doesn't matter if you think the Jew article is about the people and not about the ethnicity or culture. According to wikipedia it is.
Which makes your argument completely pointless. Please comply with consensus. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
(The mediation page has been protected, so I thought I'd bring this over here.)
I wrote:
"Social scientists like to believe they are not hampered by the dominant ideologies of their times, but history consistently proves otherwise."
You responded:
"I agree but why restrict it, why not just say 'scientists'?"
Well, I don't think the results of mathematics, physics and chemistry, for example, are all that susceptible to ideological manipulation. Of course, there are some ideological disputes within the more theoretical branches of all sciences, but the social sciences are uniquely subject to the influence of the Zeitgeist. And there's nothing wrong with that, provided one understands that they serve a different function than do the "hard" sciences. The history of the social sciences - particularly in the United States over the last 100 years - is quite interesting, particularly when compared with the development of the very issues they set out to study. "Race and intelligence" is certainly no exception. --Aryaman (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you give your opinion here?Tim Vickers (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Jew. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. It's still referenced... A8UDI 13:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jew, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. A8UDI 13:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Message added 14:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A8UDI 14:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I like your neutrality. Could you please give your opinion about the issue going on at Chilean people. User:Likeminas is removing sourced informations arguing that they are "false informations", "personal opinions of the author of the book" and the the view of the author is not compatible with the majority view. Opinoso (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hallo, I have tried to respond to you on the Boas/talk page, just want to add that my list is in German, but most basic information should pose no difficulties, not as much as the chaotic state it is in, anyways. My debates with User: Jürgen Engel on Boas are on his talk page, de:Benutzer:Jürgen_Engel. --Radh (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi SLR. Long time no chat. I'm still on extended wikibreak and so I'd like you to add Fourth Wall to your watch list. Please review [2] my last edit to it] and my earlier ones [3][4]. There is a campaign to keep the page in this version which violates site policy. You can see in that diff that one editor went so far as to remove (by reversion) sourced info restoring a page tagged for clean-up in order to keep the page in their preferred version. Anyway if I'm wrong feel free to RV me. Best wishes,--Cailil talk 20:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I have a problem that I don't know how to handle on Wikipedia and I was wondering if I could ask your excellent advice? I created the article Nina Gray about two weeks ago; but I got an email from Ms. Gray saying she wants the article deleted. Here's the email:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
So, I'm willing to oblige the request. I never considered that the article had any "private information" but it was all stuff I found on the web, and well referenced; maybe she's just a very private person? The traffic statistics to the article are minimal. But I think the article is "notable". But I don't think Wikipedia will be any worse off without the NG article. So, I'm wondering: is there a way to quietly delete the article? Or does it have to do something called an AfD? And I'm only a nooB; I've never done an AfD b4. And is it a good reason that "subject of article doesn't want an article" -- is that a good enough reason to delete the article? Seeking your advice.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You are the subject of a discussion at ANI.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please be more careful in your discussions, including those with Die4Dixie. Using the word "trolling" is rarely helpful. I wish you the best.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I would say that the Earth moves about under the pendulum rather than around it. --Ettrig (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at this?...
[5] Ninguém (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
User_talk:Collect#Mediation_on_Judaism Debresser (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
As a Brazilian, I can tell you that I regret the government, the IBGE, etc, at the XXI century, still use these categories. I would rather prefer the French model where "ethnicity" is not reported. The "white" construct is a construct all over the world, not only in Brazil. In other Latin American countries, as well as in the Anglosphere, being "white" is a social construct. Therefore the Brazilian social construct on "race", even though I do not agree with it (I think it should have been abolished long ago; without giving up protection for those who need it), is no worse than any other, and no better either. Different researches have given different results, and they should not be used as the "final say", even the genetic studies, especially given the heterogeneity of the Brazilian population in particular. "White", "black", "pardo", are words invented by the Western Eurasian invaders of the Americas, Africa and Oceania to suit their agendas. The perpetuation of these categories means the perpetuation of the colonial mentality. Having said that, the current definition is that a person who says he is "white" is "white" for the government, as the main criterion is self identification. Of course not all people who say they are "white" are pred. European or fully European. The opposite happens, many of those who say they are "pardo" or even "black" are in fact pred. European (in many cases overwhelmingly European, like Tiazinha, a "brown skinned", not so Euro looking, celebrity who turned out to be 99,9% European according to her autosomal DNA test results). In social use the appearance can be an important factor for identification, though not always. And ancestry and appearance do not always correlate. There is a wide subjective area here as well.
As a Brazilian who is interested in the history of his own country, I am familiar with how "race" and the "underdevelopment" of Brazil have been associated by Europeans for centuries (and still are). From Count Gobineau (there were many others before him), who said our population would become sterile, to Gregory Clark, contemporary Scottish economist, who said there is nothing our government can do to improve our socio-economic figures, given our "race", we have been the target of all racialists. Instead of blaming the brutal European colonization, which meant the decimation of the indigenous populations, and mass importation of slaves from Africa to work to produce basic goods for Europe, they - the European racialists - rather blame our "race". Of course they - the Europeans - have never apologised for what they did to other peoples, nor were (or are) they willing to pay the appropriate compensations.
cheers Grenzer22 (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You might want to keep an eye on this editor. His edits seem to be targeting articles related to Jews. I reverted all the Boas stuff he added as it was just a pov insertion in the lead of an old, rebutted claim. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, thank you four your input. It is good to know that there are places and peoples where our heterogeneity is not seen negatively. I appreciate the heterogeneity of the US too. Cheers Grenzer22 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Slrubenstein! I know that we've had our share of disagreements in the past, and I can get a bit passionate about writing techniques. I apologize if I allowed this passion to bring out a bit of rudeness in my behavior. While there are issues that we may never see eye to eye on, that doesn't mean that I don't respect your opinions and admire your intelligence.
I would like to wish you a very merry time this holiday season, filled with happiness and joy. Zaereth (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! An anonymous User made a very valid sounding point on Talk:Judaism#History, Antiquity: No mention of Roman Conquest by Pompey in 64 BCE about information missing from the Judaism article re: Judaism under Roman rule. Since you seem to know more about Jewish history than I do, would you be interested in adding this information to the article? I really respect you as an editor, which is why I'm asking you. Thanks, and Happy New Year! --AFriedman (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
What do you think of this rewording for the DYK hook? --AFriedman (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I think a major purpose of the DYK appearing on the main page may be to encourage people to improve articles. The new articles can be at any completion state, I think. I don't think the completion state of the article is an issue for a DYK. Do you think there are any specific tags to be added to the article, about issues such as bias? I've answered the other part of your question at the bottom of where the hook is being discussed. --AFriedman (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the nod/invite, but I'm pretty busy these days.... WP is a migthy low priority. But thanks! :) --Smilo Don (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Some time ago you left a point on the talk page of Saint Paul re references to the maxims of Seneca, and Charity. When I discover these in my travels I've placed comments in, but a little late! I disovered the exact comment of Saint Augustine from his Article page, which I have referred to at the point you made under: Charity. In my study of the life of Saint Augustine he used his work and spoke of Seneca's work/maxims before his conversion but not after. I have found the exact statement of Saint Augustine re this.
MacOfJesus (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi SlRubenstein - I think this discussion of a proposal seeking to introduce a unified citation format across wikipedia may be of interest to you.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I have opened up a discussion about the current status of the article Scientific opinion on climate change, whose title, lack of subject defintion in terms of reliable secondary sources makes me believe it to be a content fork, so I have initiated a discussion which can be seen at Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Content_Fork. I don't expect much support at this stage, but I am concerned that criticism of the articles title and definition are not being taken seriously, and need to be opened up to a wider range of editors capable of viewing this article from a broader perspective. With this in mind, I would be greatful if you contribute to the discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi SLR. Sorry to bother you but I opened an ANI thread about User:Caesarjbsquitti's soapboxing about 2 days ago. He's made an allegation of COI on my part. Could you review the situation. I'll be asking another couple of people too in the hope that the wider community might show a little interest. The thread is here--Cailil talk 22:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to apologize for archiving your post on the race and intelligence mediation. I think we're close to a consensus, and I don't want a new debate to throw us back into the argument unless it's needed. if this was inappropriate, say so, and I'll de-archive. --Ludwigs2 19:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I've reopened the merge issue on the AJ page[7], and was wondering if you could weight in. Thanks, A.Prock 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you are interested, but the article on German (Hamburg) banker Max Warburg receives endless antisemitic vandalism or at least dubious editing. I had thrown out the a lot of stupid stuff, but it never seems to stop. Perhaps the latest edit was not done in totally bad faith, but I doubt it. Could the page be half-protected or something. I am not relly active on en WP at the moment.--Radh (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that excellent summary of the situation. Please put Introduction to evolution on your to-do list! Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC) ..Hmm, thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I took a look at what you added to the article on Jesus, and I really have no objections to the content, but don't you think that two uncited weasel phrases are not exactly the way that it should have been phrased? Just a thought.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You recently mentioned having some trouble with your keyboard. I'm assuming it's a wireless. If so, try locating your signal receiver and moving it if necessary. Whenever I have trouble with mine, that seems to do the trick. --Aryaman (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Slrubenstein, thank you for your support. You explained it better than I did. I really don't like having to resort to the Admin noticeboard, since it is unpleasant for everyone. Anyway, thanks again. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Message added 22:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please see WP:ANI#Failure_of_mediation_on_Race_and_intelligence. I was very busy in Cambridge between January and March, so did not see the chaos on this page. (You did send me a message at some stage about this.) I am surprised that Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) is acting as a mediator. That seems totally inappropriate, given his editing history on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
there 's a draft of an outline at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence#Proposed_outline. You have not yet commented on it, and I am preparing to give the outline to David.Kane (per current agreement in mediation) to enter a draft of the article in mainspace. There will be a review/revision period after the draft is entered in which any issues can be addressed, so if you have no immediate comment, or can't get to the mediation page to make a comment, you can participate in the review and we can address any concerns you still have there.
sorry for the bulk message. --Ludwigs2 11:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
A new draft of the race and intelligence article is being edited into mainspace, based on discussion in mediation. It should be completed sometime on 4/1/2010. I am posting this notice to mediation participants in the hopes that those who have not contributed recently to the mediation will come back to review and comment on the draft, and help discuss any revisions that need to be made. You may make any reviews or comments at the mediation page, and we will discuss any revisions that need to be made.
I'd also ask you to leave a note for David.Kane (talk · contribs) on his talk page. Whatever your opinion of the draft itself, I think he deserves thanks for putting a lot of time and effort into making the revisions. --Ludwigs2 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
re: this. everyone else missed that. --Ludwigs2 18:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
ah, you faked me out! adding material and using the edit summary 'removing unsourced material' on the second edit. [9]. funny. If you want to add this material, please bring it up on the mediation page for proper discussion. That's what the mediation page is for. Thanks --Ludwigs2 20:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am writing for some help related to an issue concerning historical evidence of possible antisemitism. I'm having an issue on the Keynes page where I am seeking to include an actual quote from Keynes using his exact words: "I do not mean that Russian Communism alters, or even seeks to alter, human nature, that it makes Jews less avaricious or Russians less extravagant than they were before."[1] But, someone reverted that inclusion. I re-added it because it is historically accurate (the chosen words of Keynes). None of the articles that are references to Keynes mention or state this source or this quote. It is not intellectually rigorous to exclude this hard fact, if anything, it is revisionism and historical manipulation to exclude it. Thank you for your looking into this and/or your assistance. Bull Market 22:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
hi,
i also left a comment at Ludwigs2's talk page.
best regards mustihussain 02:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)
as you know the health and nutrition chapter has been removed. can i reintroduce it? i made some points on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Where_did_the_nutrition_section_go.3F) but no one cares.mustihussain 12:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)
Thanks for taking the time to provide advice on article writing. Appreciated! I think that I get what you mean. Are they any specific (controversial) articles that you think handle this especially well? I learn best with an example to study closely. David.Kane (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Before I go too far down the rabbit hole, do you think my current approach is fruitful, or at least not obviously stupid? I am using Nisbett's Appendix B as a way to organize the article. This requires some twisting and shuffling but will, I hope, allow future editors to make changes in specific sections as they see fit without generating endless rancor. Thoughts? David.Kane (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
A link to a message. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Ludwigs2 01:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
For your help and comments. I think I will stick around a bit-- hopefully this web site won't suck me in though.
B—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpesta22 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
SLR, you’re edit warring. You’ve just reverted the article four times within less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 3RR. I’m not going to report you about this yet, but I will if you continue with this. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Currently there is a discussion to either merge to Ashkenazi Jews or delete this article. I see you made some opening remarks about the validity of the article in August of last year. I don't see any major changes made to the article in that time. I actually marked the article for deletion in 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_intelligence_%283rd%29, but they voted to keep the article. What is your current opinion of the article? ScienceApe (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
just as a thought, re: [14] to mikemikev. I think his edit was as off-base as you do, but if you get him riled up you're risking an edit war. who needs that? might be worthwhile to sit with it for a few minutes before the situation gets any more wound up. --Ludwigs2 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I tagged Ashkenazi intelligence, and Ashkenazi Jews with merge tags. I want to expand the discussion you started, and get more opinions in, but I'm not sure how to do that. I heard something about village pump? I'm not too familiar with it, do you know anything about it? ScienceApe (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
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. Eugene (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
A bit of advice: you might wish to try saying less, it will make you look better. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I took a look, and commented on the unblock request. Sorting through the stupid 'christ myth as pseudoscience, or not' thing is asinine. History isn't a pseudoscience - it's factual research. There aren't many facts supporting Jesus' existence, outside of the bible and a couple of Roman documents. Given the heavy editing of the Bible, it's useless as proof of anything, esp. since now, most people read something five to ten steps away from the original hebrew and aramaic. I'd suggest that it's controversial to discuss EITHER reality, that he did exist, or that he did not. It's not worth categorizing, unless someone can explain a specific scientific principle being subverted there.
I'll try to read through it, but to be blunt, I got tired of fighting on Wikipedia. The push for agendas of and by various extremist thinkers has dulled my joy here to the point where I'm on less and less. This is the sort of thing that pushes me away more than endears me to it now. The holy rollers SO want Jesus to be the only reality, and the atheists want him to be bunk. The reality is that if it's not a science topic, it's not a pseudoscience candidate. ThuranX (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
For what little it's worth, I asked Ehrman what he thought about the mythical Jesus idea recently (since I had seen all the activity around the article, but studiously avoided looked into it until today), and he said that he was tempted to write his next book about it. It's hard to say how serious he was, but his annoyance at the issue was apparent. Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I posted a comment, but may still be missing the point, as I have been a bit busy IRL. Crum375 (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the first issue, I hope everything turned out ok! I've been very busy, out of town for most of March and have been trying to catch up on things ever since. Thanks for the second note, definitely something I'm interested in and will check it out and see if there's anything I can do to help. Good to hear from you, hope you're doing well...! Dreadstar ☥ 05:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If what this is referring to is "in-text attribution", that issue is handled elsewhere. In general, we only require in-text attribution to support contentious or controversial material, but it may be used in other cases too. Crum375 (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment there. Which edit warring were you referring to? Why do you mention Richard Lynn? Is it something Captain Occam wrote elsewhere? Mathsci (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have been following. I honestly don't understand the point. I would wait until something changes in the text of the policy, then address it if needed. Crum375 (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
"Wasn't this how ethnic-conflict e.g. Israel-Palestine conflicts were handled?" Not really. Instead, ArbCom put it's "discressionary sanctions" regime on them per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. This has done approximately nothing to solve the problem, rather just kicked it to a different forum. Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I have deleted your recent article Getta Bloomin' Move On as a pretty blatant copyright violation. I notice that you also have on your user page two Bertold Brecht poems, where the copyright status is unclear but which seem more likely to be copyrighted than not. Perhaps these should be removed as well. Fram (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just reverted him and told him I'll block him next time he makes an anti-Semitic attack against an editor. Dougweller (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I left a comment here, though I'm not sure it's in the right section so feel free to move it. Looking at it only from a policy perspective (I only glanced at the content), I would use both the primary and secondary sources, partly in the interests of BLP. "Historian A writes that X. Jensen writing in 1997 argues that Y," but making sure Jensen isn't allowed to overwhelm the others. SlimVirgin talk contribs 10:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I left a generic comment about avoiding reliance on primary sources to create our own version of history. I hope this is relevant. Please let me know if more is needed. Crum375 (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
wait this picture isn't correct isnt it supposed to be Abraham and ....i forgot the other person,but im pretty sure it wasn't a monkey!--Eikipitiki (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Eikipitiki
Delightful to have access to those lyrics — I only wish my Cockney rhyming slang were a little more sharply honed. Thanks again! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey SLR - at the moment, I'm really busy, and don't feel like I have time to delve into disputes on Wikipedia. I think I agree with you, but in general I'm wary of weighing in on disputes because somebody asked me to on my talk page - that often lends itself to accusations of canvassing and such, which might be counter-productive. Anyway, just thought I'd leave a note here to let you know that, for the foreseeable future, I probably won't be in much of a position to engage in talk page arguments on wikipedia, especially not ones I haven't gotten involved in organically. john k (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you're interested in NPOV policy, so I wanted to share my essay on local NPOV maxima. Cheers, --DJ (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to weigh in at Talk:Judaism#"Jewish religion"? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I do like the current lede. Hopefully we'll come up with something everyone is okay with. :-)EGMichaels (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I will keep an eye on the page though I am not an expert on religion. Maybe I will learn something. A.Cython (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I look at WP:NPOV as the Middle path of the Wikipedia philosophy. Wikipedia is becoming a way of life and some editors approach zealotry. For me NPOV is the prime directive as I edit or try and reach consensus. Your proposal for the new section on the NPOV page is interesting but it fails to address the creation of a numeracy for calculating the size of a faction promoting certain POV's. A majority of Wikipedia is based on the fallacy of appeal to authority and we spend so many hours arguing about who is the best authority or who has the most authorities. It would be nice to at least interject some science to the source accumulation and numeration. Alatari (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did drop out. I get that kind of behaviour at work - I don't need it in recreational settings as well, so I thought I'd pull out of the discussion rather than risk getting bad tempered at someone. Unfortunately it coincided with a busy period generally (seems to be the season for conferences and I've been doing a lot of travelling), so I haven't been around for the last few days at all. I'll take a look if I get the chance. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
. I could also use some more help at R&I. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
Hammy64000 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Warned This is your second warning. You have been edit warring in the Patriarchy article.Hammy64000 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
A note from AN3: revert can be construed more broadly than simply pressing the undo button; particularly, as I read it, reversing the effects of another editor's contribution in whole or in part may be a revert for the purposes of 3RR. Actually defining whether an edit should be counted as an edit or a revert only comes into play once a revert war starts, but I would appreciate if you stay a little further from the WP:EW line. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent change and thanks for the credit. I continue to believe that editors of good faith can work together on these articles. David.Kane (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I appreciated seeing your recent work in cleaning up the lead of WP:Content forking, which I just now noticed. It's been needing clarification for quite some time. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other about whether the 13 principles are included. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi SLR, in case you missed it, you may be interested in this draft. Your comments on the talk page would be very welcome. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Rvcx recently filed a request for arbitration on Race and intelligence and the related articles.
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race_and_Intelligence 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—
Thanks, Captain Occam (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I have anything to say specifically on this, but I have added another omment of a more general nature on the talk page. Peter jackson (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
i am exhausted! but good luck to you. i'll be around. cheers, Maysara (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You archived the talk page before an answer could be given, I reverted and added an answer to Wikiwatcher1, an edit conflict appeared and you had reverted again. So I reverted again after copying the text and added the reply. I thing the page should not be archived again for at least 48 hours to give Wikiwatcher1 ample time to reply; cheers. Victor9876 (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You wrote: "David Kane has produced a good deal of content that violates SYNTH and misrepresents sources." In the context of something as formal as ArbCom, you ought to provide diffs to support such an accusation. I bet that you will have trouble doing so. It would be fair to accuse me of, for example, deleting many Jensen related quotes that I view, perhaps, incorrectly, as violating BLP. But I don't think that I have ever misrepresented any sources. You should either support that accusation with diffs or withdraw it. David.Kane (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2010 (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/Race and intelligence/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/Race and intelligence/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not very happy with the entire first section (I mean the one immediately after the lead) - it's shallow and written from a rather uninformed mental viewpoint formed by the concepts inherent in Christianity, particularly the assumption that a religion is a set of beliefs. So that definition of Judaism as "ethical monotheism" shouldn't be seen as a definition so much as a characterisation - Judaism is undeniably more than this, but I don't think it can be reduced below this.
So what else could be added? The idea of Israel as a godly community is pretty important. What else? Covenant, torah... one could go on for quite some time. I think these are the terms that need to be introduced in the first section, not thie present shallow and misleading history-based discussion.
I think the present editors on the article sound like a pretty sensible, reasonable group, and I'd be happy to float these ideas there. PiCo (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
PiCo (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(Undent) So I should concentrate on improving "religious movements"? Nice little project :). Of course, I'm slightly handicapped by beginning from a position of complete ignorance. I'll view it as an education. Do you know I actually visited Israel once? The guys at the airport didn't know what to make of me - I gather most of their Christian visitors want to go see Christian holy places - I visited a goat farm. Why not, goats are nice, and they belonged to a hippy-philosopher with a beautiful view out over what I was assured was Cana, that place of the best of all miracles: water into wine. PiCo (talk)