User talk:NYScholar/Archive 4

[Parking here temporarily:] Below (and in editing mode) are the notes that I cannot currently put in the proper section in the article Lewis Libby; they go after the first sentence in the paragraph about his personal family history and would be currently note numbers 5, 6, and 7 in that article (which are currently blank). The block is preventing me from adding the notes where they belong now due to previous editor's reverting of "Jewish American lawyer" to "American lawyer." Now the first mention that Libby is Jewish is in his personal family background section: Lewis Libby#Early life and family. For more information, please see the talk page of the article, which will explain what I was attempting to do prior to being blocked. The notes just needed to be moved. --NYScholar 06:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[Parking here temporarily:] Sources to add to other articles that I'm working on:

additional source of Jimmy Carter's Brandeis U speech (Jan. 23, 2007) [I have had trouble getting the Brandeis U RealPlayer version to play all the way through; replacement link:

Jimmy Carter speech at Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, January 23, 2007. Accessed February 23, 2007. Will add to notes/references already in article and clean up problems that subsequent editors have been introducing in that article recently; there is some POV editing recently inserted in it by others. --NYScholar 02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Middle East Forum, Middle East Quarterly, and Daniel Pipes

Your posts to WP:AN/3RR

Please stop posting and reposting false and malicious reports about editors who have reported you for 3RR. That page is for genuine reports, not vengeance. Please review the 3RR policy to find out what counts as a violation. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's only fair to warn you that I'm coming close to recommending a community ban for your repeated violations of NPA and CIV, incessant reverting, complete failure to understand the core content policies, almost constant disruption of talk pages and articles, malicious reports about other editors, repeated removal of admin warnings from your talk page, and inability to get along with others. You must give serious consideration to changing your editing style and the way you interact if you want to continue editing Wikpedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I refer to all readers of this page to the conflict of interest Noticeboard report that I filed. I stand by it. The rationale for it is already archived on my talk page. --NYScholar 01:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I strenuously object to: "false and malicious reports about editors who have reported you for 3RR.* That page is for genuine reports, not vengeance"; none of those descriptions is an accurate description of my actual behavior or motives. (I edit in good faith.) They seem to be projections of their creator. --NYScholar 09:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• I actually had also reported the other two users: Armon (who withdrew his own 3RR report) and Isarig; This administrator deleted my own reports and comments (from the 3RR violations reports page no less!), claiming that they were "harrassment": in my view, a clear projection of her own attitudes and motives.
• Point of fact: I do not "remove" or fully delete these "adminstrative warnings"; I archive them. Proof is in the archive pages. I'm not that adept at archiving, so it does take a while, but they ultimately end up there. (I can't even find an archive of talk pages at this particular administrator's talk page. Just a photo that, in my view, belies reality.) --NYScholar 10:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I remove obvious personal attacks involving me and others from my talk page and from other talk pages. [I would remove the scare terms "false"; "malicious"; "vengeance" and the implication that I am lying (all untrue), but, given the above administrator's threat, I've left them for context.]

Note the message at the top of my current talk page: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (Personal attack removed)

Rethink

You might want to rethink your behavior here. Your (often rather counterfactual) punctuation warring at the Pinter article, for example, is not making you any friends here. Just a word to the wise. If the arguments you've put forth are irritating and nonsensical enough that I feel the need to come to the defense of the position of User:Alai, with whom I frequently argue, strongly, more than just about anyone else on the entire system, then you may well want to consider that you could be making a mistake in judgement. PS: Making it one step harder to get to your talk page by futzing your sig to have no links isn't going to stop anyone who has 2 days experience here from doing so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[At first I archived the above comment, but then, on reflection, deleted a comment on me that is personal in nature; the comment does not focus on the content of an article; if it were focusing on the content of an article, it would belong in the talk page of that article: above is the comment as it was originally posted in my current talk page. --NYScholar 04:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)]

This comment appears to relate intially to punctuation, and I address that concern about punctuation in the article talk page. The claim that my point about punctuation is "nonsensical" is off the mark; it is incorrect; and I make that clear in my comment appropriately on the talk page of the article.

The rest of the comment is really personal: there is no point in complaining about how my signature posts; I use four tildes; the signature posts as "NYScholar" in my preferred format, as governed by a selectable preference in Wikipedia "preferences"; my selection of my preferences is my choice. I am not "futzing" my signature (whatever that means). I am not doing anything to my signature. My signature posts using four tildes, according to the selected Wikipedia preference, which is my preference, as selected. --NYScholar 04:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Libby revert (again)

(You're free to delete this or reply to it however - it's your Talk page!) My previous comment had nothing to do with the content of the article and everything to do with the manner in which you performed your edit. It was solely directed at you. It's no big deal; I just wanted to clarify that. Happy editing! --ElKevbo 06:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that; but my reply to you does have to do with the content of the article, so I moved the exchange there. I understand what you said. I would appreciate your helping to restore the kinds of edits that do belong in this article. Those deletions of sources createad a lot of confusions and I can't follow the editing history easily now. Since you know what you tried to add, could you please propose the changes that you want to make on the talk page of the article "prior" to making them. This is a "controversial" article, and that is what one is supposed to do in such articles: see talk page tag headers on the talk page of the article, and please follow them. Obviously, some other editors are not doing that. All substantive changes (including those introducing new references) need to be discussed first. (I set up the tagged headers on this talk page in some cases.) --NYScholar 06:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all substantive changes need to be discussed but I understand where you're coming from. Rest assured that I probably won't be making any substantive changes to this article unless I see things that are clearly out of line with Wikipedia policy; this subject area is not my area of interest or strength. I only got involved when cleaning up after a spammer who was misattributing AP and Reuters stories. My other edit was to restore a section that was deleted because it was "non-notable" when the provided citations seem to establish notability in my judgement (I may not know much about Libby but I'm competent to judge notability given sufficient sources for a claim). If someone would like to discuss the deletion of that section further to propose deletion on other grounds or make a case for non-notability despite the reference sources, he or she is welcome to do so on the Talk page.

I'll keep an eye on the article and assist as I can. --ElKevbo 06:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In my last edit, I added some material that I have already discussed prior to doing that (it wasn't a reverting; I recomposed the material.) Some other editors are ignoring the discussion and engaging in POV editing. --NYScholar 06:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw your last few edits and procedurally they look fine to me. I'll leave the content of the article and the edits to the subject matter experts such as yourself. --ElKevbo 06:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your courtesy; but, really, you are free to propose changes to the content of the article and to suggest additional notable, reliable sources for it. I did not mean to step on previous edits, but I'm having trouble sorting out individual edits in the editing history. If you want me to help with something, please let me know on the talk page of the article. I will see your comment on suggested improvements to the content of the article there, as will others. Thanks. --NYScholar 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)\

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/talk:Lewis Libby, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 22:53, March 3, 2007 (UTC) On that page I have disagreed with the presentation (which is not accurate). I will not agree to this attempt at what I regard as more of the same (harrassment); moreover, That statement is inaccurate. See Talk:Lewis Libby. I, NYScholar, did not agree to "mediation" with respect to this other party on any such terms. See Talk:Lewis Libby and see my comments in the Noticeboard re: the article.

This other party said that he was going to submit the editing content dispute issues concerning the article for "arbitration". I welcomed only that on the talk page of the article. Even the statement there that he makes of what "we" have agreed to is not accurate. Personally, I am unable to and will not participate in this "mediation." I will be away from home for the next two weeks due to family illness. The article Lewis Libby itself needs editing content dispute resolution. That does not involve me. It involves neutral observers reading the article and the talk page and examining the sources that I and others have cited and documented in it. Prior to his posting this in my talk page, I said that I would have no future dealings with this user in any way. I will not agree to this so-called "mediation". I have clearly stated that I wanted no further interaction with this user on his talk page. It was I who first said that he was harrassing me, not the other way around. I courteously asked him to stop (on his talk page, following WP:NPA. This attempt of defining the problems of that article as a battle between two contributors is, in my view, just an extension of his further harrassment of me (a contributor) rather than his focusing on the actual content of the article. He tried the BLP noticeboard, and has gotten no support there in his latest comments that I have seen; now he's trying this. (That notice board has far more activity in its comments by other Wikipedia users who disagree with him. I posted just two brief summary comments there in response to inaccuracies in his extensive comments and replies to others, noting some repeated exchanges between him and other users there. There is no clear-cut rationale in his singling me out for "mediation"; others disagree with him very strongly there too.) I will not fall victim to further harrassment in this manner. I have formally stated that I "disagree" and that I do not agree to be a party in this so-called request for "mediation". Focus on the content of the article and not on its contributors. Having made some typographical corrections and clarifications here and in the article's talk page comments, I have said all I want to say about this matter. As before, I have just been working on trying to improve the chronology, facts, and citations in the article itself and will ignore his previous interference in my doing that. I hope that it will not continue. --NYScholar 07:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for reply

Hi NYScholar, I wonder if you might look at my question at the bottom of the Alan Dershowitz talk page. Thanks, --G-Dett 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Lewis Libby. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel Bryant

This message delivered: 07:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

OK City Bombing

Hello,

I left some comments of the talk page of the OK City bombing (Talk:Oklahoma City bombing) regarding your removal of referenced material. I'm not saying your wrong to remove them, but it seems to me that the material was appropriately sourced by a reputable source, and I would like it if you could disucsuss this topic with us there. Thank you.

--Otheus 10:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I explained my rationale in the editing history of the article. Please place such comments about the editing of the article there; thanks. (I'm away from my home computer and not able to deal w/ this matter now (see reply to other user below). I will be archiving these comments later or moving them to the talk pages of relevant articles. "Reputable source" is not a Wikipedia term; sources need to meet criteria in Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; they need "full citations" and that means author, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed and so on. I'll look at article within next couple of weeks, after I return. --NYScholar 05:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby

Thanks for your work on this article. If you cannot access the NPR Pesca piece on your computer, try a different browser, install the app you need, or try another computer. However, just because you cannot personally access a radio program, a medical article, an archived news article, a subscription-only website, etc. does not mean it is not verifiable. The issue of his first name is of interest to readers and needs to be in the article. The NPR piece is a reliable source per WP:RS, so it should not be removed simply because you don't have a way to hear it. It works fine for everyone else. Thanks again for your work on this article. Jokestress 06:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Jokestress; equally, I appreciate your own vigilance w/ this article. Re: editing the article: I am away from my home computer, and I can't reply to messages in this talk page from the computer that I am using without being knocked off after some short period of time. I'll look the article over after I get back within a couple of weeks. Re: the NPR piece: please post instructions in the talk page of Lewis Libby re: how to access directly the exact quotation (from Pesca) that someone has repeatedly been putting in the article. If the quotation is not from a published (NPR) transcript and is being rendered into text by a Wikipedia editor, that amounts to "original research"; the material needs to be accessible to all readers of Wikipedia, not just some readers. More importantly, the quotation itself is not a definitive and fully trustworthy account of Libby's first name, as it cites Wikipedia itself as one source and others that are speculative; it also doesn't give the authors and titles of news articles and just refers to a "Lexis-Nexis search": that is too vague and not convincing; one does not know how reliable such sources being referred to in that blanket manner are. The name is still not completely established by notable, reliable and universally verifiable sources. When I checked the audio clip at NPR it appeared to be defunct and no longer accessible. I am able to listen to other RealPlayer clips at NPR and other sites, so that is not the problem. The outdatedness of the link seems to be the problem. What version of RealPlayer does one need to listen to it (I have the most recent version on my home computer). --NYScholar 05:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

AMA (Notmyrealname)

Hi i just want to ask you to comment on this AMA case as it evolves you. Thank You, Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talkTodays Pick 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This appears to me to be pure nonsense. I have had nothing to do with that user since he/she began harrassing me initially ("harrassing" was my word, which he has adopted), leading me to post an appropriate message on his/her talk page asking him/her to desist in reverting my editorial work without explanation and to desist in focusing on me personally (making personal attacks against me such as using a header with my user name in it, which is prohibited in talk page guidelines). After that, instead he began accusing me of harrassing him. Since I declined to participate in his so-called request for "mediation" in a matter that had (in my view) already ended when I refused to have anything further to do with him--and I had the option to decline--he has persisted in this matter, escalating it for no rational reason (as far as I can tell).

I have had no response to him since I said I would not interact with him further, when I declined the mediation. I have no idea why he is persisting. It is he who began focusing on me personally as a contributor not the other way around. Misleadingly, he omits the context of my comments. I have no interest in pursuing this matter and I will not be drawn farther into it. It is perverse. I posted a message on a couple of talk pages explaining that I would not be able to edit articles while I was away from home over a period of one to two weeks; I was able to log on while away from home to do some further editorial work on a couple of articles (which did not involve replying in any fashion to him directly); I simply commented on content issues. I do not have time for this. I have other non-Wikipedia work to do and do not want to be drawn into any personal disputes with other users. I am interested only in improving articles and not in personal interaction with Wikipedia users. This user is not focusing on content and is focusing on contributors and presenting the situation of my editing of content in a misleading way. I do not know why he will not let it go. I have not addressed him directly for quite a long time now. It appears to me that he is simply making trouble. --NYScholar 05:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A full account of my editing history of the article would begin at this point--103085060, which long predates the other user's working on the article; the talk page history also long predates that user's working on the article. He entered more recently. There is a history of problems with the matter that he was reverting. If one reads the entire talk page history, one can see that. It is a content issue that he initially made into a personal issue. I have worked hard to present the content issue in as neutral a manner as possible after determining that the sources support the way I edited it last; other editors have continually reverted what that user opposes. I have not. I have simply stayed with what the sources support. Again, this is, in my view, a non-matter. I have had no interaction with the user in question since I declined the mediation, as I see no need for any such mediation as I have no dispute with the user. The dispute is manufactured by himself. --NYScholar 05:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the statements the user makes again: Again I see that he is falsifying the record; I never "agreed" to any "mediation" with him as a user; he made a challenging statement in the talk page of the article on Lewis Libby about putting the content issue to arbitration, and I said I welcomed that. I was not referring to a "personal" dispute mediation in any way. I thought that he wanted some neutral observer to look at the disagreement about content. Instead, he submitted a "mediation" report that was false (as I stated in response to it) and that I declined (as I was entitled to do). Now, it appears that he has re-stated the same false claims in this "arbitration" report. I have no interest in this matter. My only interest is in the content of the article. --NYScholar 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For the past talk page re: Lewis Libby that someone else archived, see the following Archive 2, where I first posted a preliminary warning regarding reversions. Much later, after further investigating sources being cited, I decided to leave the deletion of the category "Jewish American lawyers" from the article; others reverted that continually for a while. This was a true dispute about content, which the other user has continually brought down to a personal level. Addressing a user by name is not a "personal attack"; names of users are not supposed to appear in headings on talk pages, however; the tendency of this user to put my user name in a talk page heading illustrates that he focuses on the contributor instead of the content. I have no further time to deal with any of this dispute with that user. I have no interest in him personally. If one reviews my comments, one can see that they focus on my concerns with losing sources that I had established to be notable, pertinent, and reliable and documented properly according to WP:Cite. Deletions of those sources are what I was concerned about, not him himself. Those are content issues, and I stand by my comments about them. --NYScholar 08:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments that I moved from WP:BLPN#Lewis_Libby

[....] (In my experience of the editing history of the article and the talk pages of the article on Lewis Libby, s/he is not a neutral observer; s/he tried to bring me (not the article) to "mediation" which I declined due to the inaccuracy of the reports made (I had initially thought s/he wanted arbitration on the dispute about content issues; but s/he made it a personal mediation with one user (me), which I declined due to the inaccurate statement of what I had supposedly "agreed to", and other inaccuracies attributed to me; when that "mediation" failed, s/he attempt to create "arbitration" of some personal kind (again, not about the article content issues but about contributors); that went nowhere. (I have replied to those issues, pointing again to the inaccuracy of the reports being made by the user: see archive 4 of my talk page.) I made no "personal comments" about the user in what I posted in this noticeboard, and I do not intend to do so. (I have, however, found it necessary to warn that user and others about making such personal attacks against me and referred to WP:NPA in doing so. In my view, the above comment by the other user is just another such veiled personal attack, disguised at complaining that I am personally attacking him/her.) As I have said in my own talk page, now archived, I really would rather not engage directly with that particular user at all, due to the immediate descent s/he makes into claims of personal attacks and continual perception of personal attacks where none are made or intended (at least by me). That is why I have referred readers of this noticeboard to the talk page and my own previous notice about this article (archive 12, heading 14).[....]

[....]I have attacked no one. Initially, weeks ago now, as is Wikipedia policy, I posted a warning to the user about impending violations of Wikipedia:3RR; then the user started claiming that I was attacking him/her personally. That is and has not been the case. The user then took my comments that s/he keeps quoting at every opportunity out of the context of the editing history of the article--which initially referred to his/her reversions--misinterpreted them and, despite being informed of his/her misinterpretations, persists in making them as if they are facts, when they are not. The above user has been engaging in these reversions of reliably-sourced information continually, violating WP:POV as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:BLP#Public figures. My pointing that out and addressing clearcut editing content issues were clearly not personal attacks on the user. The user persists in misinterpreting any reference to his/her editing as comments on him/herself. He/she makes discussion of content discussion about himself/herself, which they are not. Those constant misinterpretations violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I have featured the template for WP:NPA clearly on my own talk page from long before I ever encountered this user (due to my own sensitivity about others who focus on contributors rather than on content). I am sure that the user knows this. My own policy on my talk page is to delete personal attacks. I announce that policy clearly. I will not countenance them. Those who make them violate WP:NPA.

The article is currently protected. If one wants to examine the editing history of the article and who has contributed what content to it and who has deleted content from it, along with explanations of the changes, one needs to consult the entire history of the article, not the material that the above user quotes repeatedly out of context. The reports that s/he filed for "mediation" and "arbitration" are not accurate reports; they are filled with self-serving false personal insinuations and are not reliable. I think that any neutral observer will be able to perceive the inaccuracies and the self-serving nature of the reports.

I am glad that more neutral observers (preferably administrators not involved in editing articles dealing with matters pertaining to parties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without biases about these matters), will be reviewing the article on Lewis Libby. In conjunction with this article, one can take a look at similar problems (editing biases) in articles pertaining to other living figures who pertain to this conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Wikipedia appears to have recurring problems with developing truly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view articles on such subjects that identify "full citations" (author, title, publication, publication date, date accessed) according to Wikipedia:Citations, Wikipedia:Attribution, and WP:POV, while still following WP:BLP#Public figures and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. --NYScholar 01:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[....]Simply another misleading misrepresentation; as I have already stated above: "The reports that s/he filed for "mediation" and "arbitration" are not accurate reports; they are filled with self-serving false personal insinuations and are not reliable. I think that any neutral observer will be able to perceive the inaccuracies and the self-serving nature of the reports." The comments about me as "the above editor" are equally misleading and inaccurate. The talk page (e.g,, current Talk:Lewis Libby and Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 3#Section deleted by another editor (in Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 3) and the article by Ron Kampeas cited there are transparent. One can simply read them and judge for oneself. It would not be necessary to reply to the misleading misrepresentations of the article by Kampeas cited (see the Lewis Libby#References) if this and the other user involved in the dispute were not continually making them and deleting references to the article. These users' POV misleading misrepresentations of the article cannot be left standing as if they are accurate or true, when they are false and misleading. [If one examines the editing history of the article carefully, one will see that these two other users (jayjg and notmyrealname) have contributed no well-sourced content to the article; jayjg has simply continually reverted others' work, contributing virtually no content at all to the article, except to replace Kampeas with another source at 2 points, after s/he deleted Kampeas; as far as I can tell from the editing history, notmyrealname has contributed only one sentence citing a source that was clearly inaccurate and that I had to remove because it misrepresented the primary source it cited (all discussed in talk page); I have since added both the primary and the secondary source, quoting from the primary source accurately, while following up the quotation with the secondary source.

In contrast to their mostly deletions and reversions, I have devoted a lot of time over a long period of time to providing much well-sourced content for this article, and I contributed hours of my time providing "full citations" and attempted to develop the content of the article further.

The initial inclusion of the category "Jewish American lawyers" was not my work; it was done by other users (often anon. IP users). At first, seeing Libby's name listed in the category called "Jewish American Lawyers", the category seemed completely reasonable to me; later, after reading some arguments against such a category inclusion in Libby's article, I agreed that the category was not necessary. Then I found a reliable source (Kampeas) for it; but I have still not been re-adding the category to the article. It is not true to say that I have done that. Others have done that. I have simply tried to cite what Kampeas discusses as information that relates to the notability of the subject (Lewis Libby) following WP:POV and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:BLP#Public figures, as well as Wikipedia:Verifiability. Jayjg repeatedly removed one sentence and an alternative five lines that I had added explaining the controversy that Kampeas reports on in entirely neutral language (each time I was trying to come up with some way of satisfying his apparent objections; but then, he also deleted the source by Kampeas from the Bibliography which s/he or someone else had renamed "References" (incorrect at that time). Not realizing what Jayjg was actually trying to do, I restored the name "Bibliography" to it (which it had had for weeks prior to Jayjg's change of it), but then I thought well "References" is okay, and I restored the heading for the section. But then he removed the source by Kampeas again, saying that there was nothing in the article for which it was a "reference" (a problem which his deletion and the renaming of the section initially caused, of course; since, prior to that, the references list was called Bibliography). I explained my rationale for adding Kampeas on the talk page of the article (yet again). I added the material justifying the inclusion of the source and returned the section name to "Bibliography", which it had already been for weeks. When Jayjg removed the source again, calling it "nonsense" and other pejorative terms (his POV judgment), casting false aspersions on me as a contributor, I added the source again to "Bibliography" and, based on the reply above, restored a short sentence citing Kampeas in the personal history/background section, prefacing it with a transition identifying the source as Kampeas (as a user posting above in this noticeboard had suggested). Jayjg deleted that as well.

Clearly, these editors are engaged in trying to remove development consistent with WP:POV from the article by hook or by crook, acting as if they own the article, despite clear statements of policy in Wikiepdia against such attitudes of ownership WP:OWN. Their continual reversions and deletions of pertinent, reliably-sourced information (and the source providing it) due to their own personal biases is what I am objecting to. Such reversions and deletions of pertinent, reliably-sourced information about a controversial subject violates Wikipedia's editing policies Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; WP:BLP#Public figures; their claims that I have ulterior motives (which I do not) violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA; I edit in good faith and I have not got any personal motives or biases for trying to provide discussion of the controversies pertaining to the subject. In fact, I am striving for achieving Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In contrast to my hours and hours of hard work improving the content and the neutrality of this article, these two users have contributed virtually nothing to improving the content or the neutrality of this article; they simply revert and delete and delete and revert, according to preconceived biases, with apparently very little if any actual interest in the particular subject of the article. That is not improving the article; that is obstructing other editors' attempts to improve the article. --NYScholar 05:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Note

I am very busy (having returned home after being away for a week), and I am deeply involved in work that I have to do. I've added a template re: that to the top of my current talk page. I do not have time to deal with Wikipedia-related disputes instigated by other Wikipedia users who continue to focus on themselves and other contributors rather than on content. --NYScholar 08:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK City Bombing

Greetings,

Earlier this month you made a change to the Oklahoma City Bombing article ([[1]). After this, myself and another editor wondered what your basis for change was. I haven't heard from you since then, so I reverted that particular change (except the spelling correction). We welcome your input and feedback on the article in the Talk section. Thanks. --Otheus 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK City bombing todo

I liked your idea of the TODO list! Did you get all my "todo" comments out of the article, or should I sweep throught it again? --Otheus 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[moving to talk page of article; please post comments on articles on their talk pages. Thanks. --NYScholar 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)]

Restoration of link on Harold Pinter

Hello, you recently restored a link on Harold Pinter that was directed to a transcript website. The disclaimer on that page states that they "are not novelizations or actual scripts. They are dry transcripts of the aired episodes that include accurate word-to-word dialogues", which makes them derivative works and in violation of point 1 of WP:EL#Restrictions on linking. If there is an officially licensed script book for the series, then you could use that as a source, otherwise you could just state the name of the episode, the writer and the director.WindsorFan 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this message. I don't think that there is "an officially licensed script book for the series." Some earlier editor had inserted some mention of this series. I elaborated the information. The transcripts was a primary source of the quotations for the more specific content that I provided. Unfortunately, I do not know of any official scripts as broadcast. TV episodes are often filmed differently from dialogue in the "script book"; there are divergences from scripts when they are aired. Thus, the recourse to transcripts. (I myself have not seen any episodes of this series.) Citation of the quotations are not themselves a violation of copyright, as I am just quoting a few sentences from such transcripts, though I do understand your point. The quotations are from one aired episode, however, not a script of it. I do not think that the brief quotations themselves violate copyright as they are made within the fair use clause of copyright law (if someone watched the series and remembered the quotations and cited them, there is no copyright violation). I have already identified the episode's title and date aired and that it is episode 4 of season 2. I am not sure the names of the writer and director do anything to avoid the problem of needing a reliable source of the actual quotations. Wikipedia does require that reliable sources be cited to document such quotations. I added the IMDB entry for that particular episode (it does not identify either the specific director or the specific writer(s) of that episode) and the DVD information for further verification. Thanks again. --NYScholar 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Temple Rodef Shalom

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Temple Rodef Shalom. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) 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. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. - I note that you have also warned other editors. Please use the talk page to achieve consensus here - Alison^☺ 23:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am the only one of the 3 other users deleting the content that I provided from the article who has been explaining my restoration of the material that they are continually deleting. These 3 other users are actually deleting material from the article in consort with one another: each of them taken together had engaged in doing so and they are the ones who should be blocked. They all know this. Thank you for the message. Please see the request for protection page and Talk:Lewis Libby and Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom for explanations of the reverting war going on in those articles. Lewis Libby has been protected for the same reason. --NYScholar 23:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You've reverted the page 6 times now; please stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No I have not. I have made 3-4 changes of your and the 2 other editors with whom you are acting in consort. You know what I am talking about. I have no intention of making any further changes to that page. I have requested page protection due to the reversions by you and the other 2 users. You are not editing in good faith, and you know it. (My other changes involved diction, typographical corrections, and adding neutrality tags and correcting those tags; those edits were not reversions of the material that you are deleting. You and the 2 other users are continually engaging in reversions of the material that another editor added; see the talk pages of the article. Please stop harrassing me. --NYScholar 00:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I am the admin who responded to the protection request on WP:RPP. You are involved in edit warring and your request for full protection has been declined. One more revert of that article and I shall block your account for WP:3RR violation. Please try to work with the other editors here - Alison^☺ 00:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of breaking 3RR. I know that these other users are attempting to tempt me into doing that. But I will not be falling into that trap. I asked for protection due to their attempts to delete information that is properly and reliably sourced from the article. Please read the entire editing history and the talk page for context. Apparently, people do not realize that I am not the editor who placed Libby in that article in the first place. There were errors in the sentence the earlier ed. had added and he/she had provided no source for it; I explain all this in the talk page and I have always been explaining my edits in the talk page; whereas these other users have not done so and have just been continually deleting the sourced information. --NYScholar 00:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: See policy in WP:BLP#Public figures pertaining to the documented sources written by Jewish Telegraphic Agency Washington Bureau Chief Ron Kampeas; those articles are reliable secondary sources drawing upon primary sources, including interviews; they have been checked and verified and have been reprinted and cited by many other reliable news publications. [The secondary source noted by the Notable Names Database in its article on "Lewis Libby" cites a publication (Tulsa Jewish Review), which lists the same information as that provided by Kampeas, which appears to be its primary source.] [RE: Lewis Libby; Talk:Lewis Libby; Temple Rodef Shalom; Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom.] --NYScholar 07:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[unblock|See the history of the attempts to block me by other users and the history of my complaint about personal attacks against me (another contributor) violating WP:NPA; these users persist in continuing the personal attacks and disingenously claiming that I initiated them. I did not. The history of the following talk pages (from approx. March 3, 2007 on)Wikipedia:NPA (heading) and Talk:Lewis Libby and Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom and the talk page archives of Talk:Lewis Libby provide the evidence of the longstanding attempt of these non-neutral users to censor properly- and reliably-sourced information from articles according to the complaints of multiple other Wikipedia users. I am protesting this attempt of this group of users in Wikipedia to strangle free speech in this encyclopedia project. I do not believe that my attempts to restore information continually deleted via their own violations of the letter and spirit of WP:3RR justify the block. See Notes above. Please note also that one of the previous blocks against my IP address (in block log) resulted from a misunderstanding and was removed by the administrator within minutes. Note also that the blocks seem to result from encountering this same group of non-neutral users in articles where I have generally been attempting to provide documentation of sources or to correct errors of sourcing. Thank you. --NYScholar 08:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC) [There was a stray colon before this request, and apparently it did not post correctly. I've corrected this by deleting the stray colon.]

---

[I've been unable to archive the previous discussion as I had attempted to do, so I have restored it below. See the still-pertinent notices at top and bottom of this page. Thank you. --NYScholar 08:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)]

That's fine. There are errors, you say. Please discuss them on the talk page. Listen to what the other editors are saying and, if there's any veracity to what you say, the article will be changed. I will not protect the article to "the right version", as there is no right version. Page protection is not for enforcing someone's POV - Alison^☺ 00:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• also, it's highly rude to "archive" your talk page, as you just did. We're in discussion here - Alison^☺ 00:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

After I responded to you above, I thought that the "discussion" was over. I archive (see statement above) after discussions end. Notice below: I have not made any changes to that article after your warning above. Jayjg exaggerates in stating that I made "6" reversions. I made 3-4 of the material that he was deleting (actually he and the 2 others were reverting my work and that of an earlier editor--Mar. 14, 2007--I posted a 3RR warning in the editing summary after Jayjg had already reverted my content 3 times; in response to the protection of Lewis Libby, he went to the article on the temple, ultimately reverted the reliably-sourced content (which is in keeping with WP:BLP#Public figures 4 times, enlisting the 2 others to do the same 2 other times, resulting in a total of 6 reverts of the content that another earlier ed. and I had providing between Mar. 14 and Mar. 16, 2007; the earliest ed. had provided the Libby listing; I revised the wording, updating it, and added documented reliable sources for it). This should be clear.

My other edits had to do with my tagging the article as I explained on the talk page of the article (see Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom), making typographical or diction changes to the tag and to the heading (not a reversion--in response to an earlier comment by another user--I simply added "past and present"; then "past and/or present" to be more accurate; then changed "past" to "former" and "present" to "current")--none of those changes are reversions. They are simply non-related corrections to material already still there.

I am the only one of the 4 people who actually did discuss my work on the talk page of the article today (Apr. 19/20). Please check this out. You are making a serious mistake. I should not be blocked because I made no further changes to the article after your warning. There should be some time that a person has to respond before being blocked. If the block is based on Jayjg's false claim of "6" reverts; his claim is incorrect (it fails to take account of his own 3 reverts and the 2 other people's 2 reverts, and then his subsequent 4th revert--6 reverts in all), and I am sure that he knows that. I have pointed that out, yet was blocked. Please reverse the block. As I said in response to you earlier--I have no intention of being "tempted" into violating 3RR; it is very clear to me that that is what those 3 users were attempting to make me do. But I did not do that, and you need to look at the editing history and talk page to see that. --NYScholar 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three reverts rule on Temple Rodef Shalom. You are welcome to continue editing after the block expires, but further edit warring will result in longer blocks. Kafziel ^Talk 00:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[Apparently, I was blocked before I even had a chance to respond to the warning above by Alison [see time stamps]; there should be at least some reasonable amount of time when a user can respond before being blocked (I did not know before I saw the talk page message that anyone had instigated a 3RR report against me). I made no changes to the article after reading Alison's warning and stated that I had no intention of doing so and had no intention of violating Wikipedia:3RR; indeed, as I pointed out, I was actively trying not to do so because it was clear to me that 3 other users were attempting to draw me into doing so in order to block me (A couple of them have since posted messages in their own or article talk pages gloating about having succeeded in doing so or drawing attention to it: clearly violating both WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Their behavior is quite sickening, in my view.) Their own reverts and deletions were clearly concerted attempts to block another contributor [me] from restoring properly- and reliably-sourced and annotated-sourced commonly-cited information about a public figure in keeping with WP:BLP#Public figures). The block against my IP address should be removed due to there being not enough time to see my response to Alison prior to Kafziel's automatic response to the blocking request by a user engaged in a long-standing editing war over reliably-sourced content that satisfies WP:BLP#Public figures: see Note above. Instead, these other 3 users should be blocked for engaging in behavior that violates Wikipedia:Etiquette, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:BLP#Public figures, as well as Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, WP:POV, WP:Neutral point of view (even removing the neutrality template from Temple Rodef Shalom, which referred readers to the talk page discussion that I posted about it, just to name a few policies they are violating. The administrator engaged in the editing war and multiple reversions of reliably-sourced content that I have documented in the two articles in question has clearly been violating behavioral requirements stated in Wikipedia:Administrator; see WP:ANOT. Thank you. --NYScholar 08:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)]

I did not violate the 3RR rule; see the editing history again. This is a mistake. I did not make any changes to the article after the warning received above. Check it out again. I will be requesting that you remove the block immediately due to the error. There were not "6" reversions as the "administrator" Jayjg claims; many of the changes had nothing to do with the material that he was deleting. You need to look more carefully at those edits and also to keep in mind that Jayjg and the 2 other users were acting together to remove the same material. They should all be blocked. They also should be blocked for making personal attacks on me on talk pages of articles and in one of their own talk pages, violating WP:NPA, which result in blocks. You are not acting fairly here. --NYScholar 00:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what they all say. It's funny - nobody cares about "fairness" as much as a person who gets blocked for 3RR.

An edit does not need be absolutely identical to be a revert; if it puts back (or removes) the same text or reasonably similar text, it's a revert. I looked at the diffs, they are quite clearly all trying to restore Lewis Libby to the "notable members" section in one way or another. They are all reverts, you did it six times, and you are blocked. Kafziel ^Talk 00:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NYScholar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I really did not think that I had done that. Some of my changes involved the tag for neutrality, a correction to the tag, a diction change to the heading (in response to a comment about it) and so on. I don't think the six edits were all reverts of that disputed material. Please check more carefully in the editing history itself. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Obviously, nobody is buying this. Your behavior speaks for itself, so I'm declining the unblock request. Kafziel ^Talk 14:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Each and every one of those six reverts has you restoring Lewis Libby to the list of notable members. You check more carefully; I can see them fine.

• 1st revert: 14:33, 19 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:02, 19 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:02, 19 April 2007
• 4th revert: 23:08, 19 April 2007
• 5th revert: 23:35, 19 April 2007
• 6th revert: 23:52, 19 April 2007

Kafziel ^Talk 00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kafziel: You have listed the same one twice:

• 2nd revert: 21:02, 19 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:02, 19 April 2007 [the other user, who has been continually reverting content that another (earlier--Mar. 14, 2007) user and I (later) provided, inadvertently left a heading with no content; responding to an editing summary, I restored the missing content for the section heading and added a few explanatory words--"past and present", later revised to "past and/or present" [for greater accuracy], later revised to "former and current" and then "former and/or current"--all four of those revisions were obviously minor and some were actually only typographical corrections (adding and/or).

[Humus sapiens later reverted my change there; not the other way around. He removed what I had restored. See the editing history.]

As for the (4) others, all I can say is that I didn't realize that there were more than 3-4 tops [and there were not; there are apparently 4], as I was also trying to fix the heading and to add the neutrality tag. I'll look them over again a bit later, but I really did not intentionally want to restore the material more than 3 or 4 times. The problem I encountered was that 3 other users were making the reversions of material that I had tried to add corrections to and a source to over a month ago; the Libby listing was put there by another user on Mar. 14, 2007 (please see my discussion on the talk page: Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom. Given the other people's reversions and their personal attacks on me, I really think that they should be blocked. Please go to the talk pages of the articles in question: Talk:Lewis Libby, Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom, and the users' own talk pages. It appears to me that at least one of them (Jayjg) was trying to get me blocked because he could not get his way with the articles otherwise. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Between them, of those 6 "reverts" you list, the other users, Jayjg, notmyname, and humus sapiens (may have his name wrong) between them also engaged in at least that number of reverts of my work (over 24 hours and also over an extended period of time): Jayjg in 4 reverts at least (He has a history in Wikipedia of doing these reversions in consort with other POV editors in articles pertaining to Jewish subjects and particularly to Israel): if you go back earlier, he's reverted the same content many times. My changes had to do with adding "past and present"; "past and/or present"; "former and current"; "former and/or current" simply to the heading of that material in an attempt to respond to a comment by notmyrealname in the editing history for "accuracy." This is not the same thing as reverting the content. Please take another look and examine their reversions of the material as well, all of which were done with no comment on the talk page at all. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please ask User engaged in personal attacks against me to stop acting as if I am "harrassing" her/him when the opposite is so obviously the case. (After experiencing multiple personal attacks in a now-archived talk page of Lewis Libby, I had initially and politely posted a request for the user to desist in such personal attacks as directed by WP:NPA#Responding to personal attacks to do (on the user's talk page). That is Wikipedia policy. Posting such a request is hardly "harrassment", especially when the posted request is explicitly protesting that user's continual and still-ongoing harrassment of me.) I am quite tired of the personal attacks that she/he is engaging in against me. I believe the person needs to be blocked for continually engaging in them. I cannot comment on the person's talk page--I asked the person many weeks ago to cease the personal attacks, but the person acts as if I instigated them. That is not the case. He/she instigated them and then tried to make it appear as the opposite. He/she started using the word "harrassment" etc. after I complained about being harrassed. He/she is doing the same thing on his/her talk page now. I think the person has some kind of psychological fixation on focusing on contributors instead of on content and then turning it around. He/she needs help. --NYScholar 00:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's enough. Being blocked is a time to think about how you plan to contribute constructively in the future, not to sit here and create little rants about how much you hate other users and how everyone is out to get you. If you can't sit out your block amicably, I will restart it and protect this page from editing. Kafziel ^Talk 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an absurd response. I never said that I "hate other users and how everyone is out to get" me. I said that they engage in multiple reverts, do not comment on their changes of contentious and controversial articles on talk pages (as required by WP), and attempt to have other users blocked, as they have done in this case. Obviously, you are not sympathetic to those problems. I am not going to "sit out" this unfair "block amicably" when the 3 other users have clearly engaged in repeated uncivil behavior that continually violates WP and guidelines. I am going to protest their behavior, as I have done. As far as restarting my block and protecting this: that is clearly vindictive and not acceptable Wikipedia behavior. I see no justification in your not paying any attention to the reverting by the other editors; many users have complained about this pattern in their edits; I am not to first Wikipedia editor to do so. Their behavior needs to be reviewed with impartiality and neutrality. I am "sitting out" my "block" but I am not doing so happily. They have, as they intended to do, succeeded in causing me and others great distress. They are happy but they are not themselves "amicable"--they do not "welcome" the rational edits of others--and they should not be rewarded for their poor citizenship in Wikipedia. They are the kinds of users which give Wikipedia a bad name among serious academics. --NYScholar 19:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Have it your way. Block reset, talk page protected. Kafziel ^Talk 19:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom/NYScholar

I have initiated an arbitration request here [2]Notmyrealname 23:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom/Lewis Libby; Temple Rodef Shalom

Once again, the above user is focusing on a contributor instead of on improving the content of articles. I have changed the heading: Requests for arbitration: Lewis Libby; Temple Rodel Shalom [This heading was since changed back by admin; see my bracketed comment after my statement at that link.]; as it is a content dispute, it should be focusing on the articles, not on me. I have stated such on the request page. This is clearly yet another attempt on the part of this user (and Jayjg et al.) to fixate on me rather than to recognize that Lewis Libby is a public figure and that, as such, WP:BLP#Public figures applies. Many other Wikipedia users have complained about their POV edits and their biased attempts to delete reliably-sourced content from articles dealing with Jewish subjects and Israel. --NYScholar 07:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC) --[tc: --NYScholar 17:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]

Archived fuller statement of response to the ArbCom

[Re: Lewis Libby; Talk:Lewis Libby (incl. archived talk pages [5]); Temple Rodef Shalom; Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom:] These users (User talk:Notmyrealname, User talk:Jayjg, and User talk:Humus sapiens) who have been deleting reliably-sourced content from articles dealing with Jewish subjects, such as articles dealing particularly with matters concerning Israel, have a persistant pattern of focusing on contributors instead of content. In this particular instance, relating to Lewis Libby--see particularly, Talk:Lewis Libby (including archived talk pages), most recently Talk:Lewis Libby#Request for comment going nowhere--[Updated link:]Now in its Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 6--and what follows it--and Temple Rodef Shalom, see particularly Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom#Neutrality tag--they twist the facts, ignore reliable sources, and, falsely, claim WP:BLP, interjecting their own biases and POV into articles they delete reliably-sourced content from, without being willing to recognize that, in this case, for example, Lewis Libby is a public figure and that in an article about him or mentioning him WP:BLP#Public figures applies. I have objected strenuously to these users' attempts to focus on me (a contributor) rather than on content. They persist in doing so. See User talk:NYScholar/Archive 4; particularly: User talk:NYScholar/Archive 4#AMA (Notmyrealname). (It was my prerogative to reject such a falsely- and misleadingly-presented request for "mediation"; Notmyrealname's mediation request was done in an entirely disingenuous manner, as I explain there in some detail.) See the links provided there to: Talk:Lewis Libby (and its various archived talk pages), to Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom, and to User talk:Notmyrealname#Wikipedia:NPA, User talk:Jayjg, User talk:Humus sapiens. --NYScholar 07:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• [Note: Since recognizing that the category was problematic (weeks ago now), I have not inserted the category "Jewish American lawyers" into the article on Libby; I was also not the first user to do so (see considerable discussion of the matter in archived talk pages in Lewis Libby); since then others have done so, and these other users (Jayjg, Notmyrealname, et al.) have deleted it continually. There are clear-cut reliable sources for including his name in that category, however, until most recently: quite recently, after his conviction in United States v. Libby, the Washington, D.C. Bar suspended Libby's law license; since the article is protected, I have not yet been able to provide this source to update the article. It is not clear at this time, therefore, whether the category "lawyer" even applies to him anymore. --NYScholar 08:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)]
• [Update: Also please note that the article Temple Rodef Shalom no longer includes Libby's name because these other users have deleted it. I don't know why the user who filed this request for arbitration persists since the material in question (the category supplied by others ["Jewish American lawyers"] and the listing of Libby's name as a temple member in the article on the temple) is no longer in either article due to the users' concerted deletions of it. [The category has not been in Lewis Libby for quite some time.] Nevertheless, I do point out that the material documented by Kampeas et al. follows WP:BLP#Public figures, and it was (and still is) properly and reliably sourced in the article on Lewis Libby prior to its protection.
• [The category requirements are fulfilled, as I have pointed out a number of times, most recently in Talk:Lewis Libby#Request for comment going nowhere; there I also point out that User talk:Jayjg is not a "neutral editor," as apparently indicated by Notmyrealname--User talk:Notmyrealname and below; cf. User talk:Jayjg. Like me and the other users involved in this content dispute, he is an "interested party" to it, and it was inappropriate for him to post his comment in "Request for comment" as he had already commented extensively on the matter (archived and current talk pages of Talk:Lewis Libby. That is why I observed that my own "Request for comment" was "going nowhere"; in the case of the "Request for comment" initiated by Notmyrealname: there were no responses at all. --NYScholar 11:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[moved from the RFA to shorten it]:

[Moved by an administrator to this spot from beneath the comment by Quatloo later:]Please note that in Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom, I also questioned some time ago whether the temple itself is notable enough to have an article about it in Wikipedia. (I was not the user who added Libby's name to the article originally; I only provided the source(s) to document it and a section heading for the other user's listing and tried to update and correct the sentence given, making it into a bullet, to which more "notable members" could be added as they might become known.) I would recommend the deletion of the entire article. But I agree with Quatloo otherwise as well. Please see Talk:Lewis Libby. --NYScholar 13:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)]

[Point of information: it appears very likely that the source for the Tulsa Jewish Review is actually the Jewish Telegraphic Agency report(s) by Ron Kampeas; I have provided a link to the actual archived "What's Nu" section of the Tulsa Jewish Review in past comments in the archived talk pages of Talk:Lewis Libby and in sources that Jayjg et al. deleted. The reliability of the note to the Tulsa Jewish Review in "Lewis Libby" in the Notable Names Database is checked and verified via the JTA reports by Kampeas. (The only reason that I have annotated the NNDB source "Lewis Libby" as possibly unreliable is due to its statement as fact of Libby's first name as "Irve", which is still somewhat controversial and unsubstantiated with absolute certainty. The rest of the source seems reliable.) The TJR and the JTA are equally-reliable published sources, as are the many other Jewish community newspapers reprinting the JTA/Kampeas article (with the sentence about Libby's membership in Temple Rodef Shalom in various versions). --NYScholar 14:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)]

[addition to statement due to further inaccurate and misleading additions by Notmyrealname]: RE: "NYScholar has repeatedly engaged in behavior that violates WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:BLP, among others. He has rejected my previous attempt of mediation, rejected the result of an rfa on the Libby talk page, and made personal attacks against myself and others on NYScholar's talk page, on my talk page, and on the Libby talk page. I have made several efforts to involve other editors into the original dispute by posting twice on the WP:BLPN page, and by encouraging other neutral editors to weigh in. An administrator that blocked NYScholar for a 3RR violation (and extended the block due to continued abusive edits by NYScholar) suggested that I bring this to arbitration."

The record will show that I have not "repeatedly engaged in behavior that violates" the policies listed "among others." I rejected a misleading and disingenuous "attempt of mediation" of what was supposed to be the editing content dispute which Notmyrealname filed against a contributor (me) after being warned of "harrassment" of a contributor (me) on her/his own talk page following WP:NPA recommended procedure. I complained about Notmyrealname's own "personal attacks against" and "harrassment" of me properly in a warning on her/his talk page that preceded her/his "tit for tat" turning that justified complaint against me; s/he continues to use this word "harrassment" as if s/he used it first; however, it was I who was complaining about the personal harrassment, which most obviously continues here. I have not made "personal attacks against" any "others"; I have justifiably protested their incivility in continually focusing on me in their deletions and comments on my properly- and reliably-sourced content in Lewis Libby and Temple Rodef Shalom, where I myself did not introduce Libby's name but added a missing source to someone else's somewhat inaccurately and incorrectly spelled insertion. I stand by my complaint politely filed on her/his talk page that preceded her/his tit for tat putting a claim of "harrassment" on my talk page instead of placing the reply in her/his own talk page, where it belonged (as it was a reply to what I posted). I waited some time to post the warning, but her/his taking comments about removing properly-sourced content on Lewis Libby down to personal levels had simply gotten out of hand, as it is here, where as Fermat says, it has now become a Wikipedia "nightmare." My account is borne out by these continuing personal attacks here. I myself have also made "several efforts to involve other editors into the original dispute by posting twice on the WP:BLPN page, and by encouraging other neutral editors to weigh in"; but all that resulted in was more personal attacks by Jayjg and Jayjg, Notmyrealname, and humus sapiens stepping up their efforts to remove the source by Kampeas from the article which had been missing a source before I had supplied it (Temple Rodef Shalom); Libby's name with the word "aide" misspelled and an out-of-date inaccurate description of who he is needed correction; I corrected it and provided the source of the information for the previously-unsourced statement. Such sources are required in Wikipedia by WP:BLP. Giving the source met that requirement. As far as "self-identification" goes, one identifies oneself as believing in a faith if one becomes a member of a temple or church, which is a faith-based organization. The membership was publicly disclosed in a publication for members cited in a reliable source published in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency by Ron Kampeas. I added the source. There is no lack of civility in doing that, no so-called "anti-Semitism", and no violation of any Wikipedia policy. Lewis Libby is a public figure and WP:BLP#Public figures applies; the tests relating to WP:BLP#Use of categories are both met: see Talk:Lewis Libby. As far as the "block" which Notmyrealname, Jayjg, and humus sapiens precipitated, the editing record is clear: among them they engaged in at least 6 reversions of editing content that they knew was disputed and the source of editing disputes in Lewis Libby, which had become protected at my request due to these constant deletions: "An administrator that blocked NYScholar for a 3RR violation (and extended the block due to continued abusive edits by NYScholar) suggested that I bring this to arbitration." There were absolutely no so-called "abusive edits" by me; if any "abusive"-ness occurred, it was in the descriptions of editing summaries by these other users, who continued to label good-faith edits backed up by reliable sources "malicious" and other pejorative names, including making direct and indirect allegations of "anti-Semitism". All three of them should be blocked for continuing this vendetta against other contributors (mostly me); see Fermat's account, which is accurate.

As far as an "administrator" suggesting that Notmyrealname take this complaint against me to "arbitration"; after blocking me for attempting to fill in the missing sourced information that was continually being reverted by these three other users in concert with one another, including one time where Notmyrealname left an empty heading ("Notable members") with no content, the administrator ignored their repeated violations of the spirit of WP:3RR and blocked me for protesting their behavior and restoring their continual reverting of reliably-sourced content. Notmyrealname inaccurately and misleadingly claimed "consensus" where none existed.

I agree with Fermat and many other Wikipedia users that Jayjg misuses his administrative "powers" (such as they are) and for doing so, he needs to be rebuked and his position as an administrator reviewed. I stand by all my comments on my own talk page, on the talk page of articles in Wikipedia, and in my statements on this page. I believe that Notmyrealname has a significant problem that s/he is unable to perceive and that neutral observers need to explain it to her/him. S/he has already been unable to abide by the results of the notice that s/he placed on the BLP Noticeboard, in response to which most replying did not support her/his position on this editing content dispute. I have not attempted to re-add Libby's name to the article on the temple, and I have recommended that the article itself be deleted. If the article remains, however, it is within WP:BLP#Public figures for his name to be listed as a notable member of the temple at least in 2005 and perhaps later, justifying a qualification "former and/or current" in a heading where such notable members may be listed. I have no interest in the article on the temple remaining in Wikipedia, but if it does remain, it needs to be accurate. It was originally classified as a stub, which is an invitation to other Wikipedia users to add to it. I may even have found the Kampeas article originally in an attempt to document the unsourced inclusion of Libby's name in the article on the temple, and then brought the source to the article on Lewis Libby (I don't recall), but I believe that was the order of events that led me to Kampeas and to a large number of reprinted and/or somewhat edited versions and citations of Kampeas' JTA article in Jewish community newspapers throughout the United States and in The Jerusalem Post; to claim that any of these sources is engaging in antisemitism or that Wikipedia editors who cite them are doing so is counterintuitive and borders on slander and libel. Academic scholars like me have long-standing professional reputations, and we object to such aspersions being cast on our work. --NYScholar 19:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [archived. --NYScholar 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]

[moved from Statement in RFA:]

....Counting edits, which are mostly typographical error corrections is misleading (as Wikipedia guidelines pertaining to doing so states). The "tit-for-tat" complaints about "personal attacks against me and others" is wholly manufactured from out-of-context and inaccurate descriptions of editing summaries; it neglects time-stamps which disprove its claims. The statement alluding to "one of his main arguments in the content debate" is entirely inaccurate: since time and time again, I point out that the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the security of Israel as a main topic pertaining to Libby's policymaking role in his positions in the White House (as both assistant to the President [Bush] and chief of staff to the Vice President [Cheney]) is a main issue pertaining to Lewis Libby: see the talk pages, and this point as discussed by several other Wikipedia users, incl. Quatloo below and in Quatloo's own replies to the BLP noticeboard dispute (archive 10: Lewis Libby, scroll down), already linked [provided directions above]. I stand by all my comments pertaining to this subject (Lewis Libby). I see no content provided by Notmyrealname in this article that is accurate; only misinformation that had to be corrected and continual deletions of properly-sourced reliable sources and properly-annotated common citations re: Libby. As I have said, this is not a matter of one contributor disagreeing with Notmyrealname and Jayjg (mostly) and recently humus sapiens. Over the course of the many archived comments in Talk:Lewis Libby, many others have disagree with their tactics. As far as lack of civility, Jayjg's posts provide the examples of that, not mine. I have not been uncivil, but I have justifiably protested the incivility of others (incl. both Jayjg and Notmyrealname, who persists in commenting on contributors rather than on content, violating WP:NPA, as she/he does again here). The talk pages of these other three users indicate that they have indeed enlisted one another in deleting sourced content from the articles in question in Wikipedia: Lewis Libby and Temple Rodef Shalom. Notmyrealname ignores the fact that long before she/he posted this request for arbitation, I already had questioned whether the temple article even is notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Moreover, I was not the user who inserted Libby's name into it; I provided the source for an otherwise unsourced insertion by another user, and I made corrections and updated the material that that user had provided. If the other user had not added the name, there would have been no need to do that. Since Libby is a public figure, the insertion was within WP:BLP#Public figures. (updated) --NYScholar 15:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)]

.... I posted a message saying that I would be out of the country and engaged in extensive research and travel through April, May, and June and possibly beyond and unable to respond to personal disputes that are being waged by these other Wikipedia users (Notmyrealname, Jayjg, humus sapiens, et al.). I was out of the country (USA) for an entire week that these users are claiming that I edited this article, when I had absolutely no computer access and did not have time or interest in consulting Wikipedia. I returned and saw what was happening with the article Lewis Libby (the deletions of reliable third-party sources); I restored the sources, made some further corrections, and posted a need for protection notice. The article was protected. Then, having failed to keep the reliable third-party sources (by Kampeas and others and the properly-annotated, commonly-cited NNDB article on Lewis Libby) out of the article on Lewis Libby, Jayjg, Notmyrealname, and humus sapiens turned to trying to remove the sources by Kampeas from the article on Temple Rodef Shalom. Seeing the same pattern, I alerted Wikipedia about the need for protection in that article too. I stand by my edits. They were done in good faith. My edits and I have been unduly and uncivilly attacked and I have been attacked personally by these other users (see their digs in their editing summaries, e.g.), violating WP:NPA, WP:AGF, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, WP:BLP#Public figures, WP:BLP#Use of categories, and WP:OWN. This is all that I have time for; I must turn to my work. Any work that I have done in Wikipedia has been voluntary work. I have no interest in volunteering any more of my own time to have my professional reputation tarnished by these other users who lack civility and who continually breach Wikipedia:Etiquette. My editing history is an open book; one can examine it and see that my edits are good-faith edits. Their editing histories are open books; and one can examine them and judge for oneself. --NYScholar 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [moved: --NYScholar 00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]

About ARB request

It's probably best to wait and see if the ARBCOM accepts the case before posting a lot of evidence and commentary on the request page. This is just a summary phase where they decide whether or not to even hear the case. If accepted, there will be plenty of opportunity to post evidence, opinions, etc. I gathered up all my edits related to Libby and stuck the diffs in my sandbox for use later in the case if they accept. I don't even think that you're directly implicated in any of them. - Crockspot 15:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see from the top of my page and my recent updating of it, I just don't have time to deal with this anymore.--NYScholar 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Further statement pertaining to Lewis Libby and Temple Rodef Shalom

[Earlier statements that I have posted are in my archive talk page 4 and in the page at RFA as linked there.] The only documented information (per Kampeas et al.) is that Libby himself is believed by multiple sources to be Jewish and that his membership in a Jewish temple for "years" prior to and possibly after 2005 documents that he identifies himself with the Jewish faith (religion, not ethnicity). [I have since read the Wikipedia article "Jew" and the various kinds of possibilities that one may have as being "Jewish": e.g., "Jew"; "ethnic Jew"; and so on. It does not appear to be any kind of violation of any Wikipedia policy or guideline in WP:BLP to identify the subject of an article in Wikipedia as being Jewish if that information is supported by reliable, third-party published sources (which it is).]

Moreover, it is clear that many of Libby's colleagues were aware that he is "Jewish" (whether ethnic or religious), as Kampeas and others cite their comments indicating that. The fact that some were not does not negate the fact that others were. Reliable published sources cited in the article on Libby now state that he was considered by Israel to be one of its government's/nation's "supporters" among other Jewish members of the Bush administration, such as Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Elliott Abrams, who, like Libby, are identified by themselves and others generally to be neoconservatives. Whether or not these so-called "neo-cons" are or are not Jewish is simply part of the POV, not all of it, but part of it. WP:POV encourages clear and accurate identification of the points of view on a subject and on subjects pertaining to a subject's work in government (if he is a public offical, as Libby was). In the case of public figures, according to WP:BLP#Public figures, even if the subject may not want the information known, if the information is reliably-sourced and not libel (as in this case the mere matter of identifying oneself with the Jewish faith is not libelous), then there is no guideline or policy in Wikipedia for an article's not mentioning it:

Public figures
In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

It is not "anti-Semitic" to state facts in neutral language. There is no animus or anti-Semitic implication being directed by simply stating a fact about a subject, just as it would not be "anti-Catholic" or "anti-Muslim" to state the mere fact that someone who is involved in Catholic studies or Islamic studies or policy relating to security of the Pope or Italy or the Middle East is himself or herself Catholic or a follower of Islam [or that the person belongs to a particular mosque, church, or, in this case, temple].

Libby himself, Kampeas documents, was not apparently hiding his being Jewish; it was well known enough among those in Washington that it was not controversial and thus for that reason perhaps it was not mentioned very often in the press, until 2005, when more information about him was being sought due to his indictment by Fitzgerald's grand jury. If Libby kept a so-called "low profile", as Kampeas points out, having interviewed Libby's White House colleagues, it was, Kampeas said, perhaps due to his high-level office, not to personal feelings. (The public relations person speculating about various people's "self-identification" is not a member of the Bush administration, but a past member of the Clinton administration, and he is speaking generally, not about Libby per se.) The article documents those points. It is a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Attribution. Since recognizing that there was a dispute about adding the category "Jewish American lawyers" some time ago, I am not one who adds the category, and, as I have stated just within the past couple of days while the article on Lewis Libby is protected, it is now clear (since April 6 or so) that his Washington, D.C. law license has been (at least temporarily) suspended by the D.C. Bar, so "Jewish American lawyers" does not seem to be a currently applicable category because "lawyer" does not seem to be currently applicable (though I do not know if he is still a member of the Pennsylvania Bar. If he is still a member of the Pennsylvania Bar, and if his law license in Pennsylvania is still in force, then he is still a lawyer (in practice). The only issues that I maintain are really within the ability of Wikipedia editors to discuss freely are such reliably-sourced discussions by Kampeas and others that establish points of view and facts about Libby as a subject of the Wikipedia article (within all WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Public figures and other Wikipedia policies such as, particularly, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:POV)--see new sources added to the talk page for doing so.

Some other editors--e.g., Notmyrealname, Jayjg, and humus sapiens--do not want the discussion; however, in my reading of the sources (which is not "original research"--the sources are cited and permissible sources in Wikipedia), discussing these matters is entirely within WP:POV and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as well as WP:BLP#Public figures. I am not one of the Wikipedia editors, therefore, who insists on adding the category "Jewish American lawyers" to the entry on Lewis Libby, though, until his law license was suspended on April 6, 2007, it seemed to apply; oddly, now, it's the "lawyer" part of the category (not the "Jewish" part) that seems inaccurate. In no case does using the category (if it is accurate) violate WP:BLP#Use of categories and it is within WP:BLP#Public figures to cite reliable sources on the subject of Lewis Libby regarding well-documented controversies pertaining to his work as a high-level government policymaker (one of the highest level) engaged in and/or involved in subjects relating to other Wikipedia articles, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Plame affair, the CIA leak grand jury investigation, and United States v. Libby.

Given Libby's involvement as a principal public figure in these subjects, an article on him goes far beyond merely being a biography of a living person. He is the subject of a controversy relating to cross-linked controversies and to matters pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hiding information obtained in reliable published sources pertinent to these subjects in which he is a principal and direct public figure of interest is a disservice to readers of Wikipedia, many of whom are students and who deserve accurate and well-sourced articles that are free from Wikipedia editors' pov and that respect WP:POV while in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

As an academic scholar and university and college professor whose main specialties include research writing for over forty years, I uphold these principles, especially as they concern education of college and university students, whom I do not wish to be misled by inaccurate or biased articles in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your arbitration request

Please be advised that the arbitration committee asks that statements at Requests for arbitration be kept to around 500 words. You are not trying to argue your entire case, but only to demonstrate that there is a case that requires their intervention. Your current statement is over 3000 words. Please reduce the length. Thank you. Thatcher131 00:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to the above advice, I have moved some of the material to my archive page 4 (here). Note: despite the heading, that is not my "arbitration request"; it is someone else's. The party keeps adding to the request, necessitating additional responses. I have no further time to spend on it. My statements are clear. --NYScholar 00:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC) --NYScholar 11:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC) [updated further w/ a link; see last of my updates below as well. --NYScholar 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)]

[additional passages moved from my RFA statement to shorten it:]

[See my objections to this (misleading and inaccurate) presentation of what is a long-standing editing content dispute. See my comments in Talk:Lewis Libby. I strenuously object to this so-called "arbitration request" focusing on me; I objected to the same attempt to focus on me rather than on the content in dispute in the articles by this user in her/his so-called "mediation request": see its history. Please see my own talk page archive 4 for my clear statements and links disputing the chronology and the facts as set forth by Notmyrealname. Many other parties object to Notmyrealname's et al.'s deletions from Lewis Libby, which also pertain to their deletions from Temple Rodef Shalom [and other articles, which continue; see comment posted on 30 April 2007 by another concerned user, User talk: Nbauman in my own talk page, in User talk:NYScholar#What's with these Jewish links?. [Now in this archive 4 page: #What's with these Jewish links?.] --NYScholar 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC) [Updated link. --NYScholar 21:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)] I saw this change of the heading after spending a lot of time working on additional sources in the talk page for further improvement of the article. This user has apparently no interest in the subject of the articles themselves, and is intent only on persisting in this personal attack on another contributor, in this case me. I find this further attempt to do so outrageous. The user is unable to abide by the previous lack of support in the BLP noticeboard Scroll down; click on "Show", and is now trying this method. --NYScholar 13:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[Edited; Rest of my statement is archived in my talk page archive 4. --NYScholar 00:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC); [updated in brackets. --NYScholar 13:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)]

[See also the equally-false and misleading and self-serving account filed by Notmyrealname in another request (Association of Members' Advocates) in March 2007 here: AMA/Request.* This so-called "arbitration request" is clearly premature, since this other request is still open and unresolved. This user has not disclosed (in the section on "other steps" above) that this Members' Advocates request exists and is still open and unresolved prior to the filing of this (I think premature and highly inaccurate, misleading, and self-serving) so-called "arbitration request" focusing on another contributor (me). --NYScholar 02:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)]

Note: *Updated: that user who filed the RFA against me seems to have a history of filing AMA Requests against other users: e.g., AMA Request re: Mitt Romney and Talk:Mitt Romney, making multiple reports of abuses against others ("vandals"), and entirely-misleading accounts of so-called "previous steps" taken in what has been a long-standing editing content dispute among many users in the articles concerning Libby, in what appears to me to be a back-door (not openly filed) attempt to get an arbitration committee member to change his vote from rejecting the RFA to accepting it: e.g., [3]. These claims about the attempt at "mediation" are entirely inaccurate, as I stated on the mediation request page at the time. I stand by my earlier statement that this user needs help given this obvious persistence in false charges against me (and others); but there was no questioning of the person's so-called "sanity"; as all the other claims, that is a gross exaggeration. Re: the so-called "RFC": no one at all responded to that user's own Request for comment (it is in an archived talk page at Talk:Lewis Libby). More recently, I myself initiated another "Request for comment" (now in archived page there) since the problems persisted and the previous RFC filed by that user had gotten no comments at all. But, as I state in the now-archived talk page at Talk:Lewis Libby, due to the insertion of POV by jayjg, Notmyrealname, and humus sapiens (and their continual reversions of reliable sourced content), it appeared to me, as I stated then, that my RFC was "going nowhere" due to such interference in my attempt to elicit responses from truly neutral editors not previously involved in the editing content dispute. I have already stated these facts. The user just simply disregards facts and persists in what I and others perceive as inaccurate and wrong-headed attempts to attack me personally instead of dealing with the facts that several other "interested parties" disagree with both his/her account of the dispute and her/his claims about my conduct, which has been entirely within Wikipedia:Etiquette. [updated. --NYScholar 23:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)]

What's with these Jewish links?

I just saw your arbitration over the Lewis Libby article. Humus sapiens, jayjg and others are also repeatedly deleting links to Jewish categories for Paul Wolfowitz. First they claimed we didn't have a reliable source for his being Jewish; then when I found references in the Jerusalem Post, The Forward, and The Hill, they deleted it for ridiculous made-up reasons ("heritage-trolling"). Talk:Paul_Wolfowitz#Jew They also left what I thought were personal attacks in Talk and in the Edit Summaries.

What's going on here? It looks like they're going after you as a warning to the rest of us. Is there anything I or anyone else should do about the arbitration? Nbauman 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this message. I suggest that you contact the members of the arbitration team directly to express your own concerns about this pattern that I and others have been perceiving as well. Please see also the statements by other users after mine in the RFA, the comment by User talk:Wassermann#Please see Request for Arbitration, who has posted on his own talk page but not (yet?) responded in the RFA. I'm involved in other work for the next few months; I will not be able to take any more time with the arbitration request. My fuller statements about the matter are in my archive 4 (see link in box), with some additional sources in Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 6 and in its current Talk:Lewis Libby, (consult that article's earlier archive pages/editing history for the history of this editing content issue and the continual reversions by those users), its current talk page, and in my own archive 5-- User talk:NYScholar/Archive 5. --NYScholar 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I repeat the comment that I have already posted:

I'm involved in other work for the next few months; I will not be able to take any more time with the arbitration request. My fuller statements about the matter are in my archive 4 (see link in box), beginning at User talk:NYScholar/Archive 4#ArbCom/Lewis Libby; Temple Rodef Shalom, with some additional sources in Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 6 and in its current Talk:Lewis Libby, (consult that article's earlier archive pages/editing history for the history of this editing content issue and the continual reversions by those users), its current talk page, and in my own archive 5-- User talk:NYScholar/Archive 5. --NYScholar 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

--NYScholar 03:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just standard procedure to alert everyone that a case is opened. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)