User talk:Noleander/Archive 5

Likewise

And a thank you to you for promoting a collegial atmosphere - also something we can use more of here.--Kubigula (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Next project:

Jewish control of the financial markets. When you have time. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I noticed you left a note on Ret.Prof's talk page. I just followed up on that comment thread (User_talk:Ret.Prof#Bigotry_and_prejudice_have_no_place_on_Wikipedia). The problem you noticed has been plaguing other articles too.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

African Diaspora articles for Version 0.8

Hi Noleander - Regarding this comment, I'm not sure about the source of this problem, but this list shows 105 African diaspora articles selected for Version 0.8. The lower scoring articles in that selection were probably selected for their importance to other projects. Please let us know if there are any changes we need to make. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess the toolserver was down when I tried to use it. --Noleander (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Typical Jew

yes you are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.231.167 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and violence - mediation?

It seems the RFC is not getting us the results that might be hoped for. The next step in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process is either informal or formal mediation. Would you be interested in pursuing that approach to resolving our dispute? I actually think we could find our way to a mutually acceptable resolution on our own but your contentious and confrontational style is making this more stressful and unpleasant than it needs to be. I was thinking a mediator might help tone things down. Mostly I'm tired of being given ultimatums based on an interpretation of Wikipedia policy that I think is open to debate. I'm willing to wait a few days to see if the RFC brings in any new feedback but I think we've seen most of what people will have to say and so, if there is still a dispute between us, the next step to consider is mediation. --Richard S (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the WP:Verifiability policy is quite clear. Persons adding material are obligated to read sources and identify the sources. See WP:Burden, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, WP:CIRCULAR, WP:CHALLENGED. In particular: "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself." Material cannot be added into WP unless the editor has read the sources. Mediation won't change that policy. --Noleander (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Ethno-religious categories

Your post to the talk page should have been part of the above discussion, don't you think? Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLPCAT_change_proposal_to_remove_.27relevant_to_their_notable_activities_or_public_life.27

Hey Noleander,

I appreciate what you're trying to do here. A couple comments and a brainstorm.

1) We really, really need to add "ethnicity" to "religion and sexual preference". The whole ethnicity thing is center for so many ridiculous debates around WP which for most intents and purposes are the same as the debate surrounding religion and sexual preference.

2) I participated in the earlier discussion. It sorta trailed off and I'm glad someone is bringing it up again. May I suggest that we try to incorporate some of the ideas behind the previous discussion with the following?

“ Categories regarding religious beliefs, ethnicity and sexual orientation should not be used unless, either a) the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question according to reliable published sources, or b) there is a strong, unambigious, and essentially undisputed consensus between multiple reliable sources applying the category in question to the subject. Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. These principles apply equally to infobox statements, lists and navigation templates. ”

Could you get behind this revision? NickCT (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that similar proposal. Yes, it looks good, and brings some sensibility to the policy. I'll follow-up on the BLP talk page. --Noleander (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

NickCT: There is a phrase in that proposal above that reads strangely: "For example, and its subcategories should only be added ..". Is that a mistake, or am I just reading it wrong? --Noleander (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinking issue. Corrected. Noleander as a sidenote, you should be aware that there is probably going to be resistance towards the whole "ethnicity" thing from some I/P editors. I think some editors are trying to write the whole "chosen people" idea into WP. Under that mindset, once someone belongs to the "chosen people" they always belong regardless of self-identity.

I'm being a little ambiguous w/ my comments b/c this is a sensitive topic. Let me know if you want me to elaborate. NickCT (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

New Antisemitism

Is the "International perspectives part of the article about New Antisemitism around the globe, or comments on New Antisemitism around the globe? Shalalal (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Shalalal

Hi, I've noticed the user Shalalal has pasted the same information as the New Antisemetism article into a number of other articles (Antisemitism, Antisemitism in Europe, Racism in Sweden). I started to cut it back, but am inexperienced in working on topics such as these which can be thorny, so backed out before making major changes - Do you have an idea which article the information should be retained in? And would you recommend just cutting all other versions out? Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I put the new material in a new article Antisemitism in Sweden, and replaced the text with links to that new article. I think that is a useful path to take. --Noleander (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done, thanks for that Clovis Sangrail (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like your changes are being reversed.. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I didnt reverse it. I rather rather added a summary text based on the article Antisemitism in Sweden that Noleander created. I've also expanded that article quite a bit. I'm actually quite satisfaced with myself.Shalalal (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Editnotice

Noleander, how do you feel about the proposed editnotice for the atheist lists? I would like to create the relevant pages, but don't want to do so without having your okay. And do you have particular lists in mind that would benefit from the generic template for religion/orientation lists that you proposed in the BLPN discussion? If you give me a list of relevant list articles, I could create these as well. --JN466 17:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess we should go ahead and try it. Edit notices are pretty prominent, so we should proceed carefully. Are we talking about the smaller (green background) EditNotice in Wikipedia:BLPN#Editnotice? or are you still proposing the larger one at the top? The discussion at Wikipedia:BLPN#Editnotice only mentioned atheist lists, so editors interested in other belief/religion/orientation lists may have ignored that discussion. I would suggest a 3 step process:

1. Post a notification to the various religion/orientation/belief projects that the EditNotice is being proposed for all religion/belief/orientation based lists (include link to Wikipedia:BLPN#Editnotice discussion)
2. Wait about 10 days (the EditNotice's text will almost certainly get tweaked)
3. If there is consensus, add the EditNotice to the various lists.

As to what lists to add it to: I'd say all the religion/belief/orientation lists. I'm not sure if there is an easy way to find them all ... we'd probably have to just do some brute-force searching. --Noleander (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

For the atheist lists, I still favour the one I created at the top of that thread. I like the colour and the little BLP logo :) and prefer the fuller text. But if you are uncomfortable with parts of it, we can talk about it. As for the generic green background editnotice, I am torn between wanting to be bold and just starting to apply it to a few lists (always a good way to generate discussion :) ) and the more careful approach you outline above. But there is really nothing controversial in the text that you proposed; it just reflects policy. --JN466 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is wisest to have a single EditNotice for all religion/belief/atheist/agnostic Lists. There are so many of these lists, it really becomes unmanageable to have distinct EditNotices for each flavor of belief. Let's continue this discussion at Wikipedia:BLPN#Editnotice so others can be involved. --Noleander (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at BLPN. On reflection, I think you are right that my text included too much interpretation. --JN466 00:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Heyo

I apologize for going back on your changes to the definition but to use "some" was not a good idea. I kept the changes to the lead not related to the definition and left you a talkpage comment explaining the issue. Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

reverts of sock

hi, i have undone your recent deletions of content added by a sock. the additions appear valid on its own and for what it's worth i will vouch for them. as an aside, please don't mark such deletion as "minor." best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

typo

Thanks! Spellcheck obviously malfunctioning today... Oncenawhile (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive invitation

Guoguo12--Talk--  02:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Future NPOVN, etc.

Since our posting to two different noticeboards based on pretty much the same issue caused such a brouhaha last time, it might be appropriate to do any coordination on the NPOVN issue of hatnote (if reverted again) or putting conspiracy theory and myth back in the lead. (Or a higher level of complaint if the attacks continue/escalate from one or more editors.) I certainly think nothing should be done (barring emergency) by anyone til next Monday/Tuesday at earliest to see if things calm down and a cooperative consensus found. (I'm way behind on my constructive edits because of all this which might help consensus-wise.) Anyway, your general thoughts on this appreciated. Here or you can move it all to my talk page if you prefer. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe you should open a new discussion at NPOVN (or start an RFC?)? The hatnote/lead issues are fairly straightforward: but it is hard to say which forum is best. NPOVN may be best because it is sort of a POV issue. --Noleander (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Since hatnote is an excuse to throw in canard as well, i think both issues belong together in NPOVN - but separate the clear policy issue on hatnote first and then the POV issue second. Maybe two subsections. Plus now I can't even remember what the heck new refs I had supporting why myth/etc belong in lead so have to do research. So next week... Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I think the key facts to present at the NPOVN are the statistics of what terminology the secondary sources use when discussing the topic: "myth" vs "conspiracy" vs "canard" vs "exaggeration" vs "misunderstanding" vs "urban legend" etc, etc. The key point is: since the sources use such a wide variety of terms, the article cannot favor just one term, but instead must indicate the breadth of terms that the sources use. In particular, the lead sentences must illustrate that breadth of interpretation. --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Give me another week or so and I'll get back to the matters at hand; but not til get all sources on all issues lined up so as to avoid generalized negative conversations. Plus will put this on the page. Unless someone beats me to it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Fyi, on Cockburn/Wanninski, I just think it's WP:OR to infer that Cockburn is critical of Wanninski except in the minimal way I mention in the supportable text I offered at the section now archived. You could move it back into main talk and see what others say. I'm reluctant to get back in there yet myself.

However, given that maybe 10 editors (or 7 with some more than once) have said that an article like "Jews and the media" would be acceptable, maybe it is time to give a try to moving the critics of Israel, Cockburn/Wanninski and all the others who have opined on it but not been called or who are not obviously antisemitic a shot. (Plus relevant good stuff from people like J.J. Goldberg.) There might be some overlap, but whatever. I wouldn't start it, but I'd add to it or improve it. Just a thought. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what schools you (in general) went to, but the opening statement claiming that it's a "canard" or "myth" is essentially saying that it's blatantly false right off the bat. Even a dumb person would realize that it's slanted and NOT neutral in the slightest. I can't help but thinking that you have an agenda to push. In short, it's a conspiracy theory, nothing more, nothing less. Validuz (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename suggestion

Given that a debate has ensued from your (good IMHO) suggestion, to reach a conclusion I believe you'll need to follow this. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not too familiar with that Request For Move process. I'm sort of busy right now, so if you want to start the RFM, go right ahead. Or I'll try to get to it in a day or two. --Noleander (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus in the Talmud

Good Work, without a doubt you saved this article! Your skill is formidable. Could you take a look at the Gospel of the Hebrews, and see if there is anything you can do to bring healing to this article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I'll glance at that other article, but I'm rather busy right now, so it is unlikely I'll have time to work on it for awhile. --Noleander (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd second that invitation to Gospel of the Hebrews, also Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament duplicate the phrase "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh." from Gospel of Matthew. I realise that this might be outside your area of interest but (as a classical Greek student with a minor interest in Hellenistic Judaism) appears to be NPOV to me.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Pranaitis unmasked

Hello Noleander, Thank you for your cooperation, the original article is in French, I am still looking for solutions to adapt it to English (If you know a reliable translator, payment is not a problem) anyway, I greatly appreciate your contribution to this article. Best regards, --[[Haneelam]] (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I ran it thru the Google automated translator and put the translation here Talk:The Talmud Unmasked/GoogleXlationOfOriginalFrench. It is very poor English, of course, and may contain some significant semantic mistakes, but I speak a modest amount of French, so I should be able to improve the quality by comparing the Google translation with the original French. --Noleander (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, French is my mother tongue, so if you need some support to replace in context Google’s translation of some words from the article, as it might be inaccurate because its an automatic translation, let me know where you have some problems, if any, regards. --[[Haneelam]] (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay ... let's continue the discussion at the Talk page here: Talk:The Talmud Unmasked. At that Talk page, I point out that more sources will be needed. --Noleander (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Noleander,

I have edited some parts of the article and deleted the "portion of the book's Table of Contents", which i think may mislead readers to believe that article confirm the accuracy of theses allegations. I hope you don't mind.

Regards, --[[Haneelam]] (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Christian Violence NPOV Tag

Hi Noleander, I'm trying to help out with the NPOV backlog and have taken this on as a to do. I don't have any particular axe to grind but you have not listed exactly what the issue is with this tag that you are looking to get resolved. Might I ask that you take a moment and carefully and concisely bring up the point or point of dispute that you have with the section you have called into question?

RegardsTirronan (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking about those tags .. I thought they'd been forgotten :-). The reason for the tags is documented in the Talk pages, in archive #2 (Talk:Christianity_and_violence/Archive_2) dated around 17 Nov 2010 to 21 Nov 2010. The bottom line is that there are several articles named "some religion and violence" and they all follow the sensible rule: "material can only be in the article if the sources directly relate violence to the religion's doctrines, texts, or leaders". But user User:Richardshusr added tons of material in Nov/Dec 2010 that did not follow that guideline - generally he would copy/paste large amounts of material from other articles into Christianity_and_violence that was unrelated to violence (I have no objection to some duplication, as long as it fits within the scope of the article) . So, the article is rather bloated and inconsistent with the way similar articles are treated. Details and examples are in Talk page archive #2. --Noleander (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, we continue to have different perspectives on this question. I think the current article does very much discuss violence as defined by reliable sources who are quoted in the article. You may wish to consider reading their work to understand their viewpoint. Slavery and antisemitism are often mentioned as examples of violence sanctioned by Christianity.

May I suggest that you review the current version of the article and then re-raise your objections relative to that version because I did make a number of edits in November towards addressing the concerns that you raised in the November discussion. It may be that I did not fully address your concerns but, since you did not continue the dialog, I had no way of telling if you were satisfied that they had been addressed or had just lost interest.

It is unreasonable (and against policy) to keep a tag on an article if there is no active discussion towards resolving that tag. If we cannot reach consensus, then you are welcome to follow the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. An RFC would be the first step in that process although the first RFC didn't provide any clear direction from other editors.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well lets address this now on the current talk page so that anyone else with the issue may also have a voice please. I'd ask each of us the re-read the offending sections and we can proceed from there.Tirronan (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I try to read that article, it is so bad, my eyes bleed. --Noleander (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ok,look this has to stop, tagging over and over and saying how bad this article is doesn't really contribute to solving the issue and is beginning to look like you simply want to obstruct the article's existence. If that is the case then I am going to ask that you refrain from editing the page for awhile. If not then I am asking that you contribute to the line by line section by section review to solve it or create a new replacement section and show that on the talk page for comment. That would be moving the article forward, what you are doing is not.Tirronan (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article sucks. There is no WP policy requiring editors who add tags to also fix the underlying problem (although they are required to participate in Talk page discussions that clarify the reason for the tag). The primary burden for fixing the extraneous material in the article belongs to the editor that put it in there, or to other editors that have the time and interest in remedying the problems. --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Tirronan, but I disagree with you. The tagging of individual sections was done by Noleander in response to my request that he be more specific than just tagging the whole article. I would be even happier if he were to identify specific paragraphs and/or sentences that are causing him heartburn.

I'm sorry that Noleander thinks the article sucks so much. I do honestly want to improve it and address his concerns. I have taken the sections that he has tagged and added corresponding sections to the Talk Page. I think we should look at each section in turn and get down to identifying specific issues with specific sentences and/or supporting citations. I'm sorry that this article makes Noleander's eyes bleed. I hope we can improve the article to the point that it no longer does that. (no sarcasm meant here at all...I'm dead serious about this except to the extent that Noleander thinks violence must be limited to only actual acts of physical violence. In that regard, we just don't seem to see eye-to-eye).

I could not respond fully to the issues raised about the sources for the Inquisition section because I don't think I wrote or copied that section. (When time permits, I'll go research the edit history to be sure of this.)

I have copied the text of the "witch-hunt" section into the Talk Page and critiqued it. If Noleander disagrees with my assessment, I would appreciate his explaining why. I just don't see what the issue is with this section. (And... I didn't write it. I'm not sure how much of it I copied. I do know that Yt95 and Taiwan boi are the most recent editors to have worked on it.

To avoid getting spread out over multiple sections, I think we should focus on these two sections and then move on so that we are only discussing one or two sections at any given time.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I got you to agree on something at least! But I've reverted for reasons on the talk page and on your talk page. We need to clean up and focus up the article, not add content of uncertain value and questionable citation from parties unknown. Nolender, if that is your opinion then its not really very helpful. Working with the other editors will make it a better article, "this sucks" really doesn't and it is not very mature. I'd appreciate you working with me but if you can not then leave it be and I'll clean it up with the other editors.Tirronan (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the actual policy:

Say where you read it Shortcuts: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. Where you want to cite John Smith, but you've only read Paul Jones who cites Smith, write it like this (this formatting is just an example; there are several ways this can be written): Smith, John. Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2. For a source available in hardcopy, microform, and/or online, omit, in most cases, which one you read. While it is useful to cite author, title, edition (1st, 2d, etc.), and similar information, it generally is not important to cite a database such as ProQuest, EbscoHost, or JStor (see the list of academic databases and search engines) or to link to such a database requiring a subscription or a third party's login. The basic bibliographic information you provide should be enough to search for the source in any of these databases that have the source. Don't add a URL that has a part of a password embedded in the URL. However, you should provide the DOI, ISBN, or another uniform identifier, if available. If the publisher offers a link to the source or its abstract that does not require a payment or a third party's login for access, you should provide the URL for that link. And if the source exists only online, give the link even if access is restricted.

Tirronan: Maybe you are not aware of this, but I already did spend lots of time in Nov 2010 trying to work with Richard on improving the article. We went thru several sections, piece by piece, but R was intransigent: He feels that (1) lots of unsourced material is okay; (2) it is okay to copy large chunks of text from other articles without reading the sources; and (3) lots of "background" material (unrelated to violence) is okay. He is wrong on all three counts. I already spent lots of time in Nov trying to work it out. So your implication that somehow I'm a lazy drive-by tagger is incorrect. Furthermore, I made many significant contributions to the article in Aug-Oct 2010. I'll resume editing the article once R's editing practices get rectified. I'm waiting patiently. --Noleander (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed that with him and on the talk page, we need to focus the article on the central issue and we need to remove the imported citation, it isn't allowed period. I'm leaving it to him to clean up what he imported and take it from there. That said the article is going to need a good amount of copy edit, the weasel wording bothers me a lot, some isn't allowed either and it drives me nuts. I'd asking everyone to not copy over material in general while we get this sorted out.Tirronan (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)+

Sounds good. I'll be happy to resume helping with the article if you can get things worked out. Best of luck. --Noleander (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've responded to the reversion on the talk page.Tirronan (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Noleander. You have new messages at Avicennasis's talk page.
Message added 01:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For never losing your temper in difficult editing areas. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Going offline

Hey leander,

Just wanted to let you know I going offline for the rest of the day. Don't want you to think I've lost interest in the conversation. As always, pleasure working with you. NickCT (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I'll continue working on that draft text you started. Feel free to modify/undo/revert when you resume your WP session. --Noleander (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Racism in Israel

Hi. You might want to consider self-reverting your last edit on the page, because I think it put you over 1RR. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't notice that. Thanks for pointing it out ... I'll self-revert. --Noleander (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gerald Krefetz

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Gerald Krefetz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 19:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Gerald Krefetz

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Gerald Krefetz. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done this for you. Not that I know anything about the subject, just in passing. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

AMX FAC

We have renominated The Autobiography of Malcolm X for FAC. Your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

I just opened an AN/I thread on your anti-Semitic editing conduct. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Economic history of the Jews for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Economic history of the Jews is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 28bytes (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was misunderstood

Didnt mean to make my post at ANI about your faith (or in this case lack of it). I dont agree with the way they are tarring and feathering as an Anti-Semite when I know its boulder dash. I seen you do good work on thorny issues and did not mean to imply that your atheism was some how the issue. Meant merely My perception of that you dislike all religions equally and dont hold any particular dislike for jews, The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 02:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for a week. The expanded block rationale will appear on ANI shortly. Instructions on how to appeal if you wish to do so are located at WP:GAB. NW (Talk) 03:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No rationale you could offer could justify this block. It should be removed and your actions questioned. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked; see ANI for further details. NW (Talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for lifting the block, and for explaining your disagreement with the opposition in such a civil manner.

Hopefully that will make it easier to each a consensus on what (if any) further steps should be taken. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Could some admin check the un-block? I still cannot edit anything except this Talk page. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I cleared the autoblock. Try editing your sandbox. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston: Thanks, that did the trick. --Noleander (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

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

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

Thanks, --JN466 03:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

New economic history of the Christians/Muslims articles

Hi Noleander: Thanks for inspiring the new articles Economic history of the Christians and Economic history of the Muslims and new Category:Economic history by religious and ethnic group. Feel free to add to them and improve them as you did with the Economic history of the Jews article. Regards, IZAK (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to inspire you :-) I'd love to help with those articles, but you'll understand if I wait for the current brouhaha to calm down before I resume editing in that arena :-) --Noleander (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration case

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: the Arbitration Committee has drawn a tentative timetable to try and resolve this case in a timely manner; they would appreciate it if all the evidence could be presented within one week, to then move on to the workshop and the proposed decision phases. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your use of RS

Hi. I've been going over the arbitration case and your statements on the matter. I would like you to consider several scenarios as I am interested in what you can offer in terms of evidence on the plagiarism/RS issue. If, as you say, you were not fully aware of the RS guidelines in 2009, that still leaves a number of unanswered questions that you will eventually have to answer. For example, can you show that you misused sources on other topics from February 2006 to let's say early 2009? Because if you can't, one would be forced to wonder why you were only misusing sources on Jewish topics. I should also warn you, there is some evidence that you were fully aware of related policies, and considering your academic interest in other subjects, it is surprising that you would not be aware of RS guidelines when they are essentially based on real world guidelines, i.e. how to evaluate a source for reliability, a concept that predates Wikipedia and is known by most students. I am also curious why you chose any text from Radio Islam in the first place. These and other questions will come up in arbitration, so I would ask that you start thinking about them now. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already addressed that in my evidence that I'm assembling. But thanks for brining it to my attention. --Noleander (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I hope you have directly addressed it, because until you do, I would say the odds of a topic ban are pretty high at this point, based on the evidence alone. Of course, if you could show that the mistake you made about sources in regards to Jews was also made on other topics, you might be able to avoid it. But, when one looks at an article like cladistics and sees diffs of you adding scientific sources, and when one reviews your policy related discussion on criticism sections, an uninvolved observer might get the impression that you knew how to use reliable sources and that you were familiar with the policies and guidelines governing their use. In your defense, you will need to directly address these concerns. If there is a pattern of using poor sources about other topics, you will need to admit to it, otherwise the evidence against you shows you used poor sources on one topic alone. I am curious, if a Wikipedia editor plagiarized a white supremacist website to add criticism to an African American-related article, and their contribution history showed an obsession with adding negative mateial about blacks and black Muslims, what would you recommend as a proposed remedy if they were brought to arbcom? Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

An additional concern: you have said that your interest is in criticizing religion not ethnicity. However, many of the examples cited as evidence in the arbcom case show criticism of ethnicity not religion. For example, what does the material from Radio Islam have to do with criticism of religion? I'm still not clear as to why you thought Radio Islam was a good source to use, or why you added the material which was clearly erroneous and racist. Obviously, you don't want to be seen as a bad editor who adds errors and racist content, but even if you admit and understand that the source you used was not acceptable, that does not explain why you added false and racist content. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this one sourcing mistake from two years ago what everyone is focusing on? That's kinda sad, IMO. Silverseren^C 23:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

For the community as a whole, this "one sourcing mistake" is telling in its overall complexity, considering that it is a perfect storm of how not to edit. Let me try and encapsulate these concerns: 1) the source is not considered reliable by any mainstream publication 2) the information was full of errors that should have been checked for accuracy before they were added 3) the information was clearly and unambiguously racist, both in its scope and in its wording 4) the information did not improve the coverage of the topic 5) the editor who added this information claims that they are focused on criticizing religion not ethnicity, however 6) the information did not criticize any aspect of religion, only ethnicity 7) the editor who added this source claims they were unclear on the RS guideline, however 8) previous edits by the user showed an understanding of how to use reliable sources and the related policies of NPOV and NOR 9) all new users make mistakes, but Noleander was an experienced user when this edit was made 10) These concerns about edits from two years ago are reflected in and mirrored by current concerns about a consistent set of edits made on the same topic, edits that have been described as problematic two years later. I should note, I am not trying to make a case against Noleander. There is already one against him listed on the arbcom page. What I am trying to do, is get Noleander to directly address these concerns in his statement to arbcom. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In the Overview section of your evidence, I'd like to suggest that you provide diffs. Instead of making a declarative statement and leaving it at that, follow the statement with diffs showing specific examples, substantiating what you said. Without that, the Arbitrators will find your arguments unconvincing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Noleander. You have new messages at Salvio giuliano's talk page.
Message added 10:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arbitration case deadline

If you can make your initial statement prior to your vacation, we will ask everyone else to have their evidence in by the 10th, and extend the deadline for you to respond to midnight UTC on 12th. Hope this works for you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hi Noleander, could you send me your e-mail address, please? There is something I'd like to forward to you and the ArbCom. My e-mail is slimvirgin at gmail dot com. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SecretRelVol2Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SecretRelVol2Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. We hope (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

AMX FAC

I think the AMX FAC will likely be archived soon, so please do indicate whether you support or oppose promotion. Thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit of cheer

In traditionally corny Wiki-style, I hope that you enjoy this cookie! Obviously, it's been a tough time for you recently, and I hope that, in a small way, this message will brighten your day just a bit. I'm glad to see that you intend to stick around the project, because I know that you are someone who can make good edits. Perhaps it's best to look at this decision as a blessing in disguise. Now you don't have to deal with the hassles that come with a particularly contentious topic, and there are tons of other editing areas where you can make well-appreciated improvements, so this is an opportunity to do work that will be well-received. As always, please don't hesitate to give me a shout if you need any help or advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Economic history articles

Hi Noleander, I feel the ARBCOM decision has been harsher than the situation warranted. There are a number of draft articles that I have been working on that build on the work that you started with Jews and money. These include History of investment banking in the United States, User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and banking and User:Pseudo-Richard/Role of Jews in the development of capitalism. I was hoping to collaborate with you on these draft articles but that seems to be forbidden by the ARBCOM decision. If you like, I am happy to discuss banned topics with you via email. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I suspect that I will be working on articles related to Jews and money for a while. Would you like me to keep you posted on my activities by leaving notes here or would you prefer that I just leave you out of it?

P.P.S. You may also be interested in Economic history of Christianity. It has been suggested that the article scope isn't really about "Economic history" and that a better title would be Economic issues in Christian theology or Christian views on economics. While I accept that "Economic history of Christianity" is not a good title, I am not convinced that the proposed alternatives are where I want to go either. As a result, the draft article remains in my userspace until I can figure out what to do with it. (Besides, I've been sinking all my Wikipedia time into History of investment banking in the United States.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard: Thanks for the information. I think those topics have quite a few reliable sources and yet are under-represented in the encyclopedia, so I'm glad to see someone may be working on broadening the encylopedia's coverage. Thanks for soliciting my input, but in keeping with the spirit of the arbitration decision, I'll bow-out of that topic area for awhile. After a year or two go by, I may ask the Arbitration committee to let me contribute again (but in a more collaborative manner :-) Good luck. --Noleander (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope nobody minds my butting in here, but I think Noleander is right to just plain steer clear of the entire topic area. I'd even be careful about touching the Christianity-related topics. The universe of encyclopedic topics is a huge one, and there are plenty of other interesting things to write about. And, Richard, anything involving communication by e-mail would be a bad idea, seen as trying to get around the decision if it came to light, and these things always come to light. The simple fact is that there are quite a few editors who are going to be watching, and looking for the slightest excuse to go running to arbitration enforcement. Sorry, I know that no one asked my opinion, but I wanted to say this anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeh... thanx for the advice, Tryptofish. I had already come to that conclusion based on the strong negative responses to my comments on the Proposed Decision page. The ARBCOM sanctions were a good deal more stringent than I imagined they would be and the attitudes of some of the respondents on that page were quite a bit stronger than I had expected. I can see now that it is going to be tricky enough to work on these topics without making things worse by stirring up suspicions that I am acting as Noleander's meatpuppet. I therefore agree that it is better to be as above suspicion as Caesar's wife. So... with this, I will say farewell to Noleander until we meet again on some less controversial topic. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander closed

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this