User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 20

Thank you

Thank you for inviting me to contribute to Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms. I think the article has great potential to be a useful reference to many readers. It's also a chance for me to contribute constructively without getting immediately embroiled in some controversy or other. Wesley (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Where to add comment

Glad you think I can help, but as I mentioned, I don't know which article it applies to...--Gilabrand (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Little Thing

Although I won't be contributing, I'm lurking for a few days to see if I get what I asked from the admin. Anyhow -- you wrote: "Jeremiah or Song of Songs - namely, books that are both in the Hebrew Bilbe and in the Christian New Testament." Careful, now. "Christian Bible" means "New Testament" to Jews and "Old and New Testaments" to Christians. But "Christian New Testament" only means "New Testament." Jeremiah and Song of Songs are not in the New Testament. I may have to make a one page web site for a small list for this sort of thing -- the original table was grossly bloated anyway by all the citation demands and losing it's usefulness for it's only intended purpose: as a term guide to help editors avoid unconscious accidents like that.Tim (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Bikinibomb

Look, Bikinibomb is a game player. You know this; you've commented on it yourself. He's an attention seeker. This is all a big lark to him, seeing how many Jews he can tweak. Is there a WP:DNFTT? If there isn't, there ought to be. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to establish that he's acting against consensus? If you leave the discussion exactly as it is now, that's established. But it's moot. Because there's nowhere to put his view in the article any more. There was, when it was a table, but now he'd need to go and put it in Figs or The Fig Tree, or create a Figs (Jewish symbol) article, which I'm quite sure would be hastily deleted.

In other words, there's no practical issue at play here. It's just Bikinibomb soaking up the attention on a talk page, with an issue that doesn't have any relevance whatsoever to the page. But by all means, continue to give him attention and a forum if you're having fun. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Try a Different Route

Sl, enlistment isn't the best tactic to use. I think it's against Wikipedia rules somewhere. In any case, there's another route to take that I wrote to Bikini separately:

This isn't the same page it was three days ago. Remember when we had to show every meaning for every POV? Well you don't have to do that any more. If you no longer need a Jewish take on "Christian" and "Trinity" then you certainly don't need one on "Figs." Only the religion that primarily uses the term need be cited.

I'm out of it because my style guide was my interest, and I'm hunting a different venue for it. But, I figure on my way out I'll try the peacemaker route.

Tim (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but... you also have to take the human factor in mind. Bikini has been highly provoked, and is still operating on a correct methodology. BB is finding sources. You are at a disadvantage in that it is impossible to prove a negative. How do you find references saying that "Figs aren't important to us." If they aren't important to the writer, he won't mention them. All BB has to do is keep finding exceptions. BBs methodology is correct, but it is not perfect. No methodology can be.

Back to the human factor -- BB will end up blowing up like I did. You saw how long I restrained myself in the first AfD, and this one I had no patience left. It's not in anyone's best interest to drive away a citation trouper like BB.

Don't mount pressure. Let it cool off, or you'll lose BB too.Tim (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to contribute to the glossary

Thank you for inviting me to contribute to the glossary. I will do so enthusiastically and humbly, Shalom, your friend, --Drboisclair (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(Ok if I reply here? Feel free to move this, of course!) The previous section deals with several q's. E.g., religious vs academic terms. Partly on a focus on shared terms. Latest is on a proposed lede. So I don't think the whole previous section would easily fit under a single heading. But I do think that more narrow headings and discussion q's might be helpful. I suppose my comment might be broken down into the "Feasibility" problem (i.e., Is there a definable scope and range?) which is discussed above; and "Policy" (dictionary; WP:NOR)" which presumably has come up before but I gather is not resolved. However, doesn't feasibility depend on complying with Policy? Plus, there's my idea of an internal glossary to avoid both of these problems. Hope this is useful. Thanks for your msg. HG | Talk 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I think people (perhaps you'd include me, though I think of myself as rather laid back by wp stds) can get touchy about refactoring, esp for a live, active discussion. Rather than rearrange the previous discussion, it's easier to reorganize as you move forward. (Note how Shira copied in previous stuff, I think.) Maybe you could float a list of the questions/topics under discussion, then see if people are willing to work within those headings. Personally, instead, I'd like to see you ask people to focus on the real crucial questions. I mean, why talk about specific words (like covenant), or the drafting of a lead, if there's no agreement yet on an article scope (and name) that satisfies our policies? Of course, folks have very different discussion styles and some like it more loose and free-flowing than I. HG | Talk 21:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to your q's, I've slightly revised my input under subunits. What do you think? Let me know if you think this is a useful direction. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to see who responds next. You might want to ask folks if they would like to see the discussion refactored or facilitated more. Other than what I've said above, well, I'm about to go offline for awhile. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 22:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Honest Mistakes

Sl -- I was not attacking you. I was pointing out HONEST mistakes and typos that come from pardigmatic slips. A Christian would not have made that typo (they would make different typos that Jews would never make). That's all. The table was not to correct dishonesty, but to assist honesty, such as your own. It's the same kind of slip that Aryeh Kaplan himself made when he said that the Trinity was idolatry for Jews, but not for Christians (meaning Gentiles). An honest mistake by one of the most brilliant lights in Judaism -- and a mistake no Christian would have made. It's a paradigm typo, that's all. I've never intended to make people change what they INTEND to say, but merely to help them avoid unconscious slips. The current glossary does nothing for that, so I'm asking the admin for a place to put the style guide. It's sorely needed by Wikieditors to avoid "typos."Tim (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course you know better! I'm not trying to educate you. You don't need it. There are typos that Jews make that Christians don't, and typos that Christians make that Jews don't. There are also terms that some Jews continue to use even when corrected (like my Rabbi's insistence on calling the New Testament the "Christian Bible" no matter how many times I try to correct him).Tim (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't create a new heading

I created a new sub-heading. The discussion had got very long, and could do with a section break anyway. The fact that it is a sub heading and mentions fig in the title, makes it quite clear. There are no such rules anyway, moving words of others around is not acceptable. Do not do it again to my words, thanks. you also made it look like I responding to someone I was not responding to. Lobojo (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You did it twice, before I made the comment that you did it erm... twice, at 51 past the hour. Lobojo (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be unfair, or aggressive, but it really gets on my nerves when people delete things that I write on talk pages, especially (as I only now note) when they disagree with me. Lobojo (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it is very minor issue, don't sweat it. Lobojo (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is total BS in my view. I don't see what goal it serves. A list of terminology and sybolism explicitly common to both Judaism and Christiany would be interesting, but this is not what there is. Lobojo (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Figs

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll comment there. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think I have much to add to the conversation. Thanks for the message though. --Eliyak T·C 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. This is beyond my knowledge, sorry. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really sure on what grounds to alter this

Hey, I am going to hand this one off to you: David Irving#Historian

Donald Cameron Watt, Emeritus Professor of Modern History at the London School of Economics, writes that he admires some of Irving's work as a historian though he rejects his conclusions about the Holocaust. According to Watt, prior to the 1996 Irving-Lipstadt libel case, The New York Times asked a number of leading American and British historians whether they regarded Irving as being a historian "of repute". The large majority answered yes.

The problem is that Donald Cameron Watt did write that in the Evening Standard, and he is in fact Emeritus Professor of Modern History at the London School of Economics; however, when you look at the NYTimes article, it says no such thing. The article is in their archives, ran in ’99. If I get time tomorrow I will try and find it again, but it’s not too hard to find if you use “historian” as one of the search words, IIRC. Thanks, Brimba (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is a Holocaust Skeptic Fit to Be a Historian? June 26, 1999 [1]

Brimba (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms

An editor has nominated Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See...

Wikipedia:Levels of competence ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pidgin

Hmm, seems like we're revert warring. I can back up the wording with Holm (1988) who says a pidgin is "a reduced language that results from extended contact between groups of people with no language in common..." The wording you've put makes it seem as though pidgins arise when groups come into contact and don't all share a second language. This is inaccurate. For a pidgin to form, the groups need to share no language. If group A speaks language A and language B while group B only speaks language B, then a pidgin won't form. There's nothing "incorrect" about the English usage there but do you think there's a way that it could be worded better now that you know the specifics? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see what you find objectionable. Well, I recommend you stay away from law ("ways and means", "cease and desist", "will and testament", "on or about", "null and void", "give, devise, and bequeath", "aid and abet", "fit and proper", etc). I agree that Maunus's compromise is good. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Spenpil

Could this be MoritzB? He seems to know about Finland and is making the same kind of pointy and offensive edits on scant evidence (the book of Lynn that he pushes in Race and intelligence was dismissed as unscholarly because it misrepresented statistical evidence). Mathsci (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a little more time is needed just to be sure. He has just started editing but went straight for R&I. Also usually MoritzB did not answer direct questions on his talk page. I have reverted his edits to R&I and instructed him to argue his case on the talk page, so we can wait to see what happens. Mathsci (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is also interesting that the article had not seen edits and suddenly two editors began going at it with pretty much the same POV. Brusegadi (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bleep

You're right about what the NOR policy says. Fortunately, we have a myriad of sources which detail (nearly point-by-point) where the film misrepresents science from Physics Today to the American Chemical Society. I realize the version I'm talking about wasn't explicit enough in its sourcing, but it has been made clear through the work of a variety of editors that there is enough criticism of the specific points in the film related to science that we can have separate sections on these issues. Since the previous version did that, it's simply a matter of sourcing each of the individual counterpoints to the appropriate reviews/discussions. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, yes, they are explicit reviews of the film in relation to its claims on quantum mechanics and water crystals. There are also additional references about the other errors documented about the film. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So your suggestion looks to me very much like what I'm proposing. Although jumping back to a previous version may look weird, it turns out that the previous version did deal with these issues. It just happened that the discussions at the time did not include references to the appropriate citations we now have. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: This a response I made to your edit on SAs talk page that SA chose to delete from his page. He went on to characterize it as POV pushing in the edit summary of the deletion. In addition, SA has requested that I stay off his talk page. I will copy it here, so you can read or comment if you wish. My comments form his talk page follow.

I am in complete agreement with Slrubenstein. My comments on the [Bleep] talk page would confirm that. I would like to underscore that your suggestion is to add a sentence. I think if we could agree to the points that you have made, the article writing will move forward quickly. Anthon01 (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to get your permission to copy your comments on SA talk page to the Bleep talk page.

... My suggestion is, review them extensively in an appropriate section in the body. When various editors can collaborate together to write an NPOV NOR compliant section in the body of the article - Wikipedia is a collaborative process! - when diverse editors reach a consensus about the section in the body, I think then is the time to work out a sentence to add to the intro that signals that there is controversy covered later in the article. look, there is no rush! Have the patience and good faith to take time to work out s extion in the body. i really believe that it will be easier to do this first. And I believe that once this is done, it will be easier to modify the intro second. One step at a time! Slrubenstein

— Talk 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

talk: Jesus

"I guess you do not understand how historians work." Have I ever said anything mean to you? Leadwind (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistory

My first impression is that it is at least fringe, but I will have to take a bit more time to give a more informed opinion.Kww (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistory

Not sure. At minimum it is a fringe subject. Furthermore, the fictional Asimov version is clearly more notable and so if we don't use a dab page that one should probably get to be listed solely at Psychohistory. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Will take a look in more detail when I have time. However, right now Early infanticidal childrearing doesn't even look like it is independently notable to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to be bold and just redirect it to the main article. None of the sources are independent, and even the criticism section is OR. An AfD won't hurt though. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect? What do you mean? Deletion? Shouldn't simply merging it with the main article be better? —Cesar Tort 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cesar, I mean redirecting, as in making it a redirect to the main article. See WP:REDIRECT. The difs under a redirects are all preserved if anything is decided to be merged. Frankly, at this moment I don't see much content worth merging. I'm going to take a much more detailed look at this as soon as I get a chance. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Discuss at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Psychohistory. Wryspy (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is even better

I have just been complimented by Jagz, but I suspect he doesn't even realise it's a compliment.

You're wasting your time trying to discuss things with Alun. He's good at repeating what he reads in books though. --Jagz (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2008(UTC).[2]

Made me smile at least. Alun (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose account

Looks like we've got a single purpose account here, with no attempt to even edit any articles yet. Clearly a pov pusher. What do you think? Alun (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Morton Smith

I have noticed that you are interested in the historical Jesus. Since 1987 I became interested in Morton Smith, especially his book Jesus the magician.

I know there has been a lot of controversy about The secret Gospel and the Clement letter. But that doesn't interest me much. The portrait that secular humanist Paul Kurtz (whom I know personally) presents about Jesus in The transcendental temptation, in which he mentions Smith's book, strikes me as realistic.

Do you hold a particular view on Smith? (BTW, I corresponded to him just before he died.)

—Cesar Tort 06:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

Thank you so much! I really appreciate that. It has always been surprising to me how under represented anthropology is both on WP and in society at large. Sometimes I think that people think that we just make this stuff up... I don't think that there was anything to say to Cesar Tort about what he wrote. As you, I still have no idea where to even begin, but thanks for the thought. I mean it's easy to respond to someone who is just being overtly racist but it's much more difficult when a person has absolutely no clue as to what they just wrote. Currently I've been trying to dispel his misconceptions about cultural relativism on his talk page and for some reason I remain optimistic.--Woland (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In her books about Islam, Oriana Fallaci made all too clear that her brutally honest critique of Muslims had nothing to do with race, but with a medieval religion and medieval ways of living.

Same with me and Robert A. Godwin. His critical article about the Muslim world I called your attention to is no "racist" at all. It merely tries to convey the idea that many Muslims are behind our times. Using deMause's jargon, I would say that, for example, what happened a couple of days ago in Iraq —a couple of bombs that killed more that 70 Muslims— roughly equals the fratricidal "psychoclass" of the XVI century Europeans who perpetrated the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre.

—Cesar Tort 23:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

positions

I have just read you user page; please read mine--we ought to understand each other. DGG (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to mention that I have some additional experience in the academic world besides being a librarian (at Princeton). But i see I left out a phrase which I have just added " and human biology, the field of my post-doc with Alan Wilson. " I've taught courses in it too, at Rutgers. DGG (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for reading other people's messages

I should say I'm sorry about reading other's talk pages, but I'm really not. I saw a comment you left on Futurebird's talk page and responded to the question you asked myself. If I was out of line in so doing, my apologies. John Carter (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hyksos

Please don't delete relevant links. ASEOR2 (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides accounts of notable views fronm reliable sources. We do not gg\ive undue weight to minoirty views. And we do not promote fringe views. There are in fact scholars writing about the Hyksos, in peer-reviewed journals in in books published by university presses. If you really cared about these topics you would go to a good research library and find the books and articles, But as long as you rely on unreliable sources for fringe views, I will remove such material from articles. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to reproduce you tube pseudo-knowledge fantasies. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

about the recent links deletion you made regarding any hyksos pages. I think your going too far with deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit war?

Hey stop editing and deleting relevant content and links. I suggest you to not to go to edit war with me. We should rather call an admin. ASEOR2 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm an admin. But admins have no special say in content issues. As a normal editor, though, I have to side with Slrubenstein on the content issue. What you are trying to do is a synthesis of unreliable self-published web pages. Sorry, but we have higher standards in Wikipeda. And Slrubenstein, please try to keep the tone of your edit summaries down a bit. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ok I make the information to subcontents not in the main info. And I try to provide links also. But if you want to go to look the links in wikipedia with me, a lot will be deleted being a "BS link". SO it's really up to not to me.

Nobody today deny that the Hyksos were not Hebrews. ASEOR2 (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Provide me with three sources, books published in academic presses or articles in peer-reviewed journal articles, by extablished professors of Biblical/Ancient Near Eastern history or archeology, that make this claim. That is all I ask for. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing I ask for is to unfold that double negative...I don't know if it is intentional or accidental. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I would have to see that you also deliver references this scale to all your edits. Of course I will include the best links and add more later. I know this is minor view so rather adding to the main content I do subcategory's. ASEOR2 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Im not making things up. You cant read books and come to conclusions for the rest of your life. If you study history you should be aware of that history is written, there for there are bound to be mistakes, a lot of mistakes, so that's why one should always be open minded and let the branches be investigated and known information brought up as a minor viewpoint. History is always far more than what it looks like to be. ASEOR2 (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That may or may not be so. But some of the core policies of Wikipedia require verifiability by reliable sources and explicitly forbid original research. If you are right or wrong - Wikipedia is not the place for your own research, unless you publish in a serious venue first. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: ASEOR2

Thanks for letting me know. I have now blocked the user for 24 hours. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been done. Dekisugi (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SirFozzie's investigation pages

During our early months as editors, both SirFozzie and I had the bad luck of encountering long term disruptive vandals. He dealt with JB196 and, until I helped him out, Fozzie became so frustrated with this site's lack of responsiveness that he nearly damaged his own reputation. I dealt with the Joan of Arc vandal, who had spent two years manipulating a range of articles that related to Catholicism, homosexuality, and cross-dressing. It took me fourteen months to convince the community that this vandal even existed; the site lost several productive Wikipedians who quit in frustration because of him.

Working on articles is a good thing; I endorse it of course. Yet it isn't a solution to everything. Even if you disagree with our approach, I hope you appreciate that both SirFozzie and I act in good faith and are committed to fairness. Durova^Charge! 20:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"RfD" Semiotic Triangle

Hi, I've been referred to you as the person who delated the Semiotic Triangle. I understanbd it is because a "banned user"wrote it. The article, in my view, had considerably more merit than the replacement article "Triangle of reference". Considerably. A "banned user" being used as a reason for deletion of a piece with merit seems to me to be an inflexible and deleterious application of a rule. Would you please find a way to allow access to the original article? Luckily, someone has pointed me to the image on the page so I have been able to save at least that. LookingGlass (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Awbrey again?

Hi Slrubenstein. Thanks for dragging me back into the Awbrey mess :-) I've gone through the whole Semiotic triangle/Triangle of reference situation as best I can. My brief conclusions:

1. I strongly concur with you that we keep Awbrey's version of Semiotic triangle deleted, since all his contributions are deeply suspect
2. The current Triangle of reference article is amazingly badly written. I have tagged it and will try to clean it up. The editor who wrote it is prone to the sort of wandering prose that Awbrey sometimes employed
3. The contributions of [[User:LookingGlass] also show some worryingly "Awbrey-esque" patterns, but not enough, I think, to be certain it is him.

I am currently prepared to WP:AGF on both LookingGlass and KYPark and deal with them in a straightforward manner, but I will keep an eye on the developing situation in case one or both turn out to be further Awbrey socks. Thnaks for the heads up. Gwernol 12:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Factwhen reversions

Is there a reason you're following Factwhen around and reverting their edits? Some of your reversions are impolite (e.g., reverting talk page comments at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Muhammad image and Talk:GNU Hurd), and some others are bad for the article (e.g., GNU Hurd). I've reverted your reversions in those specific cases. RossPatterson (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea to check the block log before restoring edits. Wikitumnus (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so Slrubenstein says Factwhen is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Which banned user? Isn't that something usually noted on the talk page of the sock? I'm not taking sides, but when I look at Factwhen's edits I see some good work being done, not what I'd expect from someone who doesn't belong on Wikipedia. RossPatterson (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Sorry to have misunderstood! RossPatterson (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

I said it because I believed it to be true. Was it not true? Paul B (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I misread the edit history, for which I apologise. Of course I was probably subconsciously influenced by my anger at the way the debate had been conducted. IMO, that is no excuse at all for immediately accusing people of lying. Do you realise how offensive that is? My objection throughout the debate on this image to your contributions has been your rapid resort to derogatory comments directed at other sincere editors. Ridiculing obvious trolls is one thing, but your repeated comments about naivity, ignorance, people giving you the best laugh of the day and so one seemed to me to be designed to humiliate rather than encourage discussion. Let's be clear, you are the only editor who has consistently objected to the use of this image and has used every argument you can think of to exclude it. If the inclusion of this imasge were really so obviously risable do you think you would be alone in this crusade? After a while, replying to the same points over and over, and to the impossible demands for evidence of "notability" that are not applied to other images becomes very wearing, especially when it is combined with a derogatory tone. When the same image was added to the Historical Jesus article not a single regular editor there thought its uncontroversial addition was even worthy of comment - let alone edit-warring over. I feel strongly that you have some personal distaste for this picture which is manifested in unnecessarily aggressive behaviour in this case. Paul B (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm back

Sorry I have been absent from the encyclopaedia lately; rather serious health issues have kept me incommunicado (in the hospital) for over two weeks. I'm back, however. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on WP:V

Hi there, I'm keeping out of this discussion for now, since there are personal issues with some of the people involved. However, I was very concerned when I thought about how the "illustrate a point of view" idea could be misused. For example, in the article about the holocaust, editors could argue for the inclusion of direct quotes from prominent neo-nazi organisations to "illustrate the point of view" that the holocaust never occurred. I think that if a source is unreliable and extremist, the only time we need quote it is when we are discussing that source - direct quotes of nazis are fine in the article on holocaust denial, but this proposal could hand people a wedge to drive them into mainstream articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus‎

Made reply to you on Talk:Jesus‎--Carlaude (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi

• Hey Rubenstein, I just wanted to clear up any "bad history" that we may still have. I know I (often wrongfully) accused you of not being totally clear with regards to references in the past, but obviously you are an accomplished editor and have a solid grasp in anthropological issues. The only think I ask is that you take a less arrogant tone when discussing matters with myself and I will follow suit. Your past insulting behaviour with myself was probably the only instance though I understand why you may have become upset. Let's just try to resolve things more "democratically" (I know I often haven't been so myself) if you will without emotion, agreed ? Epf (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I just read your message and I could not agree more with all of what you said, especially with regards to WP:Verifiability and WP:no original research in terms of Jewish ethnic identity (which is obviously far more complex than the average person might think). Anyways, I really need to get off this for a time to focus on other things, but clearly you are one of the more knowledgable editors I've discussed with on here and I look forward to co-operating with you on articles in the future. Ciao, Epf (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)