User talk:Beganlocal/Archive 1

Historic ..in what way..

please see... [[1]] (Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

June 2009

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to British National Party. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. BigDunc^Talk 13:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please reply here if you have "watched" this page as you suggest on your talk page.

Thank you for reverting my edit if it was indeed incorrect. It was not intended to be vandalism. Is it not the case that parties such as the BNP are inherently socialist and trade-unionist and therefore more accurately described as being on the extreme left (socialist / communist) end of the spectrum? I will use the talk page to discuss further instead. Still trying to find a balance between consensus and WP:BOLD Beganlocal (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult on contensious articles when you are Bold on the talk page there is a thread on this very subject, best BigDunc^Talk 13:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And so there is. A very long section as well. I stand corrected. Thank you for your observations. I will be more careful about contentious pages in the future and try to seek consensus.

hilarious, thank you. WP:BOLD(Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Brown

Just to let you know, your last two edits that you have marked as minor, this [[2]] and this[[3]] are not minor edits. A minor edit would be like a commer or a tiny addition of a letter, adding tags and changing text is not a minor edit. Regarding Brown, I would prefer it if you left the article stable as it is and discuss any issues on the talk page. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

I will reply here for continuity - the edits you refer to were grammatical improvements to a sentence - turnout was 28% rather than 28% bothered to turn up - and adding some tags. If these are not minor edits I will refrain from marking them as such in future.

If I wish to propose any substantial changes I will use the talk page, including adding new information or taking old information out. I think this is fair. I do not think it is appropriate to resort to the talk page for small edits such as changing

In Scotland only 28 percent of the voters bothered to turn up.

to

In Scotland voter turnout was at twenty eight per cent.

as both versions contain the same information presented in substantially the same way, with the latter sounding less colloquial. I do not intend making any substantial changes to the article in the near future. Beganlocal (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to add historic is never gonna work, there is nothing historic about it... apart from the fact that no one bothered to vote as they were angry about expenses and the people that voted voted for fringe parties like the BNP. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Ok what is left now I can almost bear. Or at least it is better than it was earlier this (Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

It is such a struggle ,, comparatively, historically..forget about it, just take it out,,.. the results were poor and that actually well explains the reality. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

I've removed "historic" in favour of "comparatively". Edit away if you feel you can improve. Voter apathy is voter apathy - we can suggest possible causes for that where appropriate, however it is not in order for an encyclopaedia to speculate. Votes are votes...Labour suffered pretty poor results whatever the reasons, and this reflects on Brown. I would suggest that you would be correct if the minority parties achieved more of the votes and Labour did not trail the Conservatives by such an amount. If both major parties had been taken to 2nd or 3rd place, things would look a little different. I think the compromise has to lie somewhere between acknowledging just how bad these elections were for Labour, while not blowing it out of proportion because all the other major parties also got a kicking at the polls. Beganlocal (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just seen your other message. I see your point, but just saying "poor" won't do. It went beyond that, hence the talk about resignations and leadership challenges. The pound fell 4c against the dollar on (incorrect) news that Gordon Brown had resigned - the fact is that it was thought credible. No overall control of a single English council. Unprecedented. If we add in the voter apathy and anger at the major parties, it becomes merely historically significant. Whether the voters were angry about expenses or not, the fact is they stopped voting Labour in pretty high numbers.

I really appreciate your work. They stopped voting for almost everyone. From only 4 control of councils to zero...this comment is not reflective of seats won at all but only reflects overall control.. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

There is nothing really historic at all about these results...by elections and local elections and euro votes that no one is bothered about..the results are poor for labour...lets see the results for the important election next general election.(Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

---

Hi Beganlocal, have you found time yet to write your prefered version relating to your comments, so we can compare and debate. Or can you not bring yourself to accept my simple rewrite of the last section to this....

Since he became prime minister the Labour party has returned poor results in some local elections and European elections.[13][14] Despite public and parlimentary pressure on his leadership, he remains leader of the Labour party. [15]

Have a look at this from the lede of the david cameron page....

Cameron won the Conservative leadership later that year after being seen as a young and moderate candidate who would appeal to young voters. His early leadership saw the Conservative Party establish a lead in opinion polls over Tony Blair's Labour for the first time in over ten years. Although they went behind for a time after Gordon Brown replaced Blair as Labour leader and Prime Minister,[5][6] under Cameron's leadership, throughout 2008 and to date, the Conservatives have been consistently ahead of Labour in the polls.[7]

You'll see it is biographical and not especially party political..it does not rave on about how under his leadership the tories are winning hands down and beating labour into the ground..no .. it simply says that they have been ahead in the polls..simple. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

Hi , I notice you made one edit yesterday and no reply to my question as regarding your situation with the brown page, I can only suggest if you are not prepared to offer some rewrite of the last disputed section that you accept my neutral rewrite for the benefit of the project. Please let me know, or present your rewrite for comparison or debate. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Brown cont

Hi there! I think we sorted out the lead at Talk:Gordon_Brown#Possible_rewrite_of_the_lead_section. Off2riorob has asked for a neutral contribution from me, so I've picked one from previously which we all agreed with - "During his time as leader the Labour party has suffered at local and European elections - posting the worst local election results for the party in 40 years.". Pitch in and help us out with it :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for moving your position. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

I think it would be better if you talked about it b4 stuffing it in, I have brought this section up on the talk page. Your avin a laf arent you. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

you need a new cite for the golden brown song. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

I've removed all references to Golden Brown - I think reporting nicknames is inherently negative and unfair. Beganlocal (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am bored of resisting the negative additions, I have removed as much of the negativity as I could from the lede, and I take strength from the statement that 95% of readers never get past the lede. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

I'm not doing this to be deliberately negative or piss you off. I think a better way to balance the article would be to give prominence to positive and successful actions and policies of Brown. Rather than trying to rephrase any criticism to sound positive, we could have an article which dispassionately reports on the praise and the criticism, the successes and failures, the good and the bad. Sound better? Beganlocal (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

you need a strong cite to add straw as a jew. He actually has very limited like 3rd generation one eigth jewish blood, you need a cite and you need to add the explanation. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

you added blair joined foi ..when ..and what happened..and the cite doesn't work(Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

i have revert your additions to blair, they need strengthening if you want to add..both additions are controversial. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

I think your other points are valid, but it is well known that Blair is/was in FOI - and being in FOI isn't controversial in itself. See Labour Friends of Israel and . Regarding Straw, the sources state:

Mr Dalyell made the remarks in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine, identifying Lord Levy, Tony Blair's Middle East envoy, Peter Mandelson, whose father is Jewish, and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who has Jewish ancestry, the Daily Telegraph reported. Beganlocal (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Jewish ancesty yes his great grandmfather was jewish. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

I am at the end of my tether with this, if you would like to help me then please don't go off stuffing disputable edits in..put it on the talk and try to edit in a neutral verifyable way and then I won;t have to get involved. Or better still, instead of stuffing thingsd in , have a read of the issues for the good article reassesment and do some of the small tasks there.(Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Which edit are you disagreeing with in your last paragraph? Beganlocal (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a general request. Not spesific. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

July 2009

Please stop deleting discussion at Talk:Jewish-American organized crime. What makes you say that what you are removing, which is merely discussion, is "illegal content"? Continuing on this path will get you blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone seemed to be advocating setting fire to synagogues. I made one edit to delete that. Apologies if that is out of order, but such vile discussion should be banned on wikipedia. In this day and age people could read that and get ideas! Beganlocal (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. And this was not advocacy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be sure not to edit other people on the talk page in future. Thanks for pointing this out. I just didn't think it was appropriate for people to be discussing racially motivated violence in that way. Beganlocal (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And it most certainly was NOT illegal. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 22:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lead

Though I disagree with your attempts to add Bernard Madoff's ethnicity in the lead and repetitively elsewhere, you have highlighted an important issue: the tendency of Wiki articles to unnecessarily place ethnicity in the lead. My suggestion is that you may cool some of the antagonism you've apparently caused, judging from some of the postings in this page, by going ahead and compiling a list of such instances, which can be perused by editors and removed as necessary. You can make it a subpage to your user page here.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent suggestion. I shall do so. I do not know how to create a sub page, but I will add it as a sub section to this page and perhaps some other editors may help me make the list more prominent. Beganlocal (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As a follow up - I was unhappy with some of the categories by ethnicity also. We have them for professions, however we had things like Irish American Criminals, Italian fraudsters, etc. I drew attention to the issue by adding Madoff to "Jewish Fraudsters". Somebody pointed out that he didn't deserve his own category, so I promptly added one dozen Jewish Fraudsters. This category was ultimately deleted but the CfD provoked an interesting discussion which led to other inappropriate and oestensibly racist categories being deleted also. Perhaps I could compile a similar list? Beganlocal (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad you're moving in a constructive direction on this. Re the naked short selling edits: I certainly welcome your interest in that article. It can use input from previously uninvolved editors. But you really need to find a source for the text you added on how the campaign against NSS is "misguided." This has been a contentious article, and is under arbitration committee probation, so edits such that remove sourced material and add original research can result in sanctions. It so happens I think that what you added may actually be correct, but that is neither here nor there. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I happen to know it to be true, and the market reaction to the short selling ban actually predicted a large selloff very accurately, if you interpret the information correctly. I take your point about violating WP:OR. Try telling people how the markets work...they are prevented from understanding by the media etc in order that they can be perpetually fleeced. Thanks for the warning about arbitration committee stuff. Another policy that I was unaware of.

What do you make of the massive number of articles singling out the Jews for racial profiling? Ironically I believe that Bernard Madoff and J Ezra Merkin are the only two BLPs it belongs on, yet the community would rather preserve it for Einstein and various chess players! Beganlocal (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You may want to sniff around a bit for skeptical perspectives on the NSS article. I happen to feel, and have said so in the past, that the article tends to be a bit naive and lacking in skepticism. However, it has been improved, the current version is stable, and it is not too bad. You may want to watchlist that article and weigh in on talk page discussions. You may want to look at Shortselling as well.

Not sure I understand your comment on racial profiling.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles with inappropriate placement of ethnicity in lede

Self explanatory title. Per WP:MOSBIO, ethnicity should generally not be commented on in the lede. Other editors may now have come across my persistent edits on this issue. Another editor suggested I make a list of such articles in order that it may be addressed by the community.

A list of affected articles follows, in no particular order. Please note I have deliberately excluded articles where the person is notable in part due to their Jewish culture, religion, or ethnicity. If Bernard Madoff's article called him Jewish, it wouldn't appear below.

Shulamith Firestone - "Jewish- Canadian born Feminist"

Nicole Farhi - "Jewish French fashion designer and sculptor born in Nice, France, of Algerian descent." - this one is particularly silly - Jewish, French (born in France, in case you hadn't guessed), with Algerian heritage. This is exactly the sort of thing I object to!

Radu Mihăileanu - "Jewish Romanian-born French film director "

Martin Davis - "Jewish-American mathematician". The intersection of Judiasm and mathematics is not of interest to an encyclopaedia.

Carrie Brownstein - Jewish singer. Doesn't sing about anything Jewish.

Albert Einstein This one is funny - an ethnically Jewish German born man. No idea what Judiasm has to do with Physics. It certainly isn't what he is "notable" for. See also WP:MOSBIO on ethnicity.

Kevin Weisman - Jewish actor.

Tatiana Zatulovskaya - a Jewish chess champion

David Julian Hirsh - another Jewish actor - none of these people are notable for Jewish films

Rudy Haddad - Jewish-French footballer of Tunisian descent,

Rich Vos - Jewish comedian. Article shows no evidence of him joking about Jews.

Nati Meir - "Jewish Romanian" politician

Romeo Niram - a Jewish painter

Sam Fuld - Jewish American baseball player

Eric Fischbein - another footballer, Jewish Swedish this time.

Richard Saul Wurman - the TED guy. Jewish American architect

Amanda Noar - Jewish British. Which?

Vladimir Tukmakov - another Jewish chess champion

Aleksei Turovski- a Jewish zoologist?

Hugo Egon Balder - another Jewish entertainer

Alexander Khalifman - another Jewish chess player - perhaps we need subcategories?

Alexander Mordukhovich - Jewish composer

Alexander Goldfarb (microbiologist) - Jewish-Russian-Israeli-American microbiologist, activist, and author. What the Dickens? Where was he BORN?

Irena Klepfisz - a Jewish lesbian. From my understanding of the 613 mitzvot this is prohibited. Lev. 18:22

I think that is enough to be getting on with....coming soon, number 3 placement for the word "Jewish" on google. Beganlocal (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh. That's a good list. I looked through the list and changed a few myself. On Einstein: his association with Judaism was very strong, even to the point that he was offered the presidency of Israel, so I can see it being there. But that Weissman fellow: that's a Jewish-sounding name, but there is no sourcing of his religion. Another person, the feminist I think, had a footnote referring to her Judaism, so I left it in. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been going through this list with great interest. There are some egregious situations here, such as the baseball player Sam Fuld, with no reference to religion in the article and not the slightest relevance to his notability. Would we say that a ballplayer is Protestant or African-American? Certainly not, and of course if we identified the race of a player in this day and age we'd be condemned. On the other hand, the religion of Rudy Haddad seemed relevant to his notability so I did not remove it. I also looked at your CfD and I'm not sure I agree with you on that. I don't see anything at all wrong with narrowing fraudsters by nationality. By religion or ethnicity? Possibly, but it doesn't strike me as a terrible thing at first blush.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re Irena Klepfisz: She's a Yiddishist born in the Warsaw Ghetto, so her religion is relevant to her nationality. Re Fuld: turns out that was a good point, as it seems that Fuld is Catholic on his mother's side, which means he's not Jewish. I was reverted on that, so it will be interesting how that discussion goes. I see some "who is a Jew" problem with some of these Jewish categories, under certain circumstances, though personally I don't have the same problem that you do with ethnic or religious categories. I do agree that religion is overused in leads, particularly when not properly or in this case inaccurately sourced.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

NSS

I reverted your addition as the sources you provided related to conventional and not naked short selling. As for the text you suggested on my talk page: I think the basic problem is that what you are suggesting is "synthesis." See WP:OR. That is, we can't say something that a source does not explicitly say. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take future proposed edits to the NSS talk page first since it seems to be a controversial point. I've just realised my error - I was intending to add that stuff to the "short selling" page - I had both open in tabs.

What do you think about nominating "Fraudsters by Nationality" and some Jewish labelling categories for deletion? Beganlocal (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No harm at all in trying. On the short selling, I was under the impression the Cox stuff was already in that article, but I havven't looked at it in a while. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Jewish Categories

The following lists categories which I believe are inappropriate. Per the discussion above, I would wish to nominate each category for deletion.

Category: Jews by occupation - this is defended on the basis that all the sub categories would have to be deleted first. I propose round robin editing to propose all of them in turn for deletion. The intersection of Jew and Astronaut is not a matter of encyclopaedic interest.

Category: Fraudsters by nationality - the problems with this should be obvious, but due to policy it may be required to have each nationality deleted first. I propose we start with Category:Italian Fraudsters.

Beganlocal (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed some categories which do not specifically target Jews for labelling but are nevertheless inappropriate. Please comment on the categories for discussion page Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_16#Intersection_of_British_and_Fraudster_not_a_matter_of_encyclopaedic_interest_and_is_fundamentally_racist.

Thanks for your comments re Sam Fuld. Feel free to comment on the talk page if you wish, but I think it would be better that you not revert, I've requested that neutral editors take a look. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done so. I would have no intention of reverting or starting an edit war. I do make the point, somewhat provocatively, that we cannot label someone a "Jew" just because they are featured in a "Jewish" publication. The sources do not state he is a practising Jew, and he should not be labelled as such in such a prominent way. As for the reliability of the publications - if I ran a sports magazine concentrating on a religion of course I would want to claim successful sports people as belonging to "my group" - even if there is no evidence that they do. I do not become an African American because I am featured in "Negro Sports Magazine", etc. How much can we really trust a publication which is not interested in the sport or human achievement, but only the sporting prowess of particular groups. What if I wanted to start a magazine about basketball players of African origin because I believe they are generally taller and can jump higher? Not very nice is it. Beganlocal (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

All things Jewish

Anything, be it an article or a category, with Jewish in the name always seems to draw more comments then many other nominations. The issues raised are also ones less commonly used. At least that is my impression. I'm not sure which of my closing decisions you are asking about since I really don't keep track of these, but I think that I have had a mix of no consensus, keep and delete in this area. As I believe that I have pointed out in many closes, valid points opposing the close decision are commonly raised. However these fail to obtain a consensus or enough support to change a keep or delete into a different consensus. In the end, closers really look hard to try and find a consensus. In contested areas this can be really difficult. While not a primary consideration of the close, if you elect to close in a way that will wind up at deletion review and be overturned, obviously you will not take that route since you know it is not correct. We also try to give additional weight based on similar past closes so that we follow established precedent but that can also change.

So, I guess what I am saying to answer you, is that you need to proceed with caution with these. Read all of the previous discussions and then allow sufficient time to pass before you present a well worded concise and logical case for deletion that addresses any opposing points in previous dsicussions.

I really don't have the time right now to dig through my past closes, but I believe that you basically admitted on a talk page that some of your nominations were pointy. Clearly that will weigh on any closer.

Hope this helps. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Tony Blair

I reverted your addition, it had a dangerous cite. I am about to start raising the Tony Blair article up to good article so, my next work. You are welcome to assist in that objective. I imagine a lot of things that are overly weighted there now will not survive. Regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

I thought the cite was The Guardian newspaper? I'll double check! Beganlocal (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you forget about inseting the jewish coatrack story. If you have some cites to support you addition then lets talk on the Blair talk page. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Goodness me. I noticed you had removed a section of the article as a vandal had inserted an accusation of zionism. The section contained Blair's membership of Labour Friends of Israel. I restored the text as relevant, but removed the unfounded and POV "Zionism" reference as unnecessary and unencyclopaedic. Blairs membership in LFI is sourced in the Guardian citation. I then see your revert for a dodgy cite. On checking, this is indeed the case but it was never added by me - see edit here. You again blitz all references to LFI. I reinstate, removing the dodgy reference but keeping the membership cite from Guardian. Why are you trying to remove references to Blair being a "friend of Israel". Surely it is relevant to his premiership? Beganlocal (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No it is not at all. It is your focus group, forget about it, it's irrelevent to blairs bio,.he must be a member of hundreds of groups. So what if he is a member? So? where is the story? (Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Thats 3 reverts from you now. See [[WP:3RR]. I will not make any more edits to the article concerning his membership of Labour Friends of Israel, but I would request that you make no more deletions to the article contents without first seeking consensus. I believe that the references should be reinstated, but do not wish to provoke an edit war. I will ask for contributions from neutral editors and administrative oversight.Beganlocal (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Beganlocal. Firstly I am not a vandal ;) - Secondly I have reported Off2riorob for edit warring at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Off2riorob_reported_by_User:Vexorg_.28Result:_.29 - this editor has reverted 5 times now in quick succession and is clearly trying from a POV basis to remove any reference to the LFI. His POV is clear by his/her constant reference to 'Jewish Conspiracy Coatracks', whatever that means?? The Haaretz source is clean here I checked it 5 times and I have restored it. Haaretz is a major Israeli media outlet and is reputable. Cheers. Vexorg (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Could neutral editors please take a look at the talk page of Tony Blair Talk:Tony Blair and provide contributions to the debate on foreign policy. Beganlocal (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you want WP:3O. Algebraist 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

New to WP here. Many thanks for that.

Three reverts, one or two of which was to remove the attack cite that was inserted, or in the least, reinserted by you [here]. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

In fairness there was a cite in the same place to Guardian for the same fact and it is entirely reasonable that I did not notice the attack cite. However you did not restrict your revert to removing the dodgy cite, but again removed the entire reference to the lobby group. Beganlocal (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned this to you before, if you reinsert something after I have removed it, it then becomes yours...you should have looked at what it was that I removed before you just inserted it. You inserted that attack site, after I had removed it.And then you start crying 3rr.. you are looking more and more like a SPA who is on a mission to insert his POV as many places as possible. Please take a little time to re-read the WP:NPOV Ta. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Changes on the Fed Page

I already replied on my talk page, but: Being an owner is irrelevant because they can't vote. Furthermore, the information is in the history section which I believe is an inappropriate place. If you would like to add the information about how the board of governors is selected then it should be in the Structure section. In the mean time, I'll erase the public having more control phrase because that shouldn't be discussed there either. --Dark Charles (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OC#CATGRS

Wikipedia:Overcategorization is a guideline. As such it allows flexibility in how it is implemented. While previous closes are considered so that we try and act in a consistent manner, occasionally there will be exceptions. Clearly the Jewish categories have a additional level of sensitivity that can not be ignored. So I guess what I'm saying is that yes the guideline exists, but it by itself is not going to get a category deleted without additional discussion. If you dig through the history of past discussions, claims of OCAT have been supported, rejected and reached no consensus. I think this has been reflected in my past closes where I believe I have used, keep, delete, no consensus and listify in this area. That is about the entire range of options available. If you are looking to get all of these treated in one way, I don't think that is going to happen. There are simply too many opinions out there as evidenced by the discussions.

As a suggestion. Let this drop for a while and allow things to cool down. Then in several months, try a single nomination that lays out a very clear case for deleting and addresses the concerns raised in previous discussions and counters the case made by those in favor of keeping. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful suggestions. As you will see I have not nominated any further categories for deletion. The issue with this is that you almost need to propose individual categories for deletion and argue the individual merits of keeping / deleting each, when what I really object to is the pervasive application of the label "Jewish" to everything remotely related to Judiasm or Jews.

I am not the only editor who holds these views, however my suggestions are opposed based on my support of them rather than reasoned argument. This is due to how other editors perceive my conduct. Other editors have made repeated deletion requests for categories where there is no encyclopaedic intersection between Jews and whatever the category is that is being labelled Jewish.

I agree that "all things Jewish" are likely to attract more debate than usual. There are sensitive issues here. I simply believe that there is no need to overcat and apply so many labels. Ironically the only cases I believe this was justified in were examples such as Bernard Madoff who perpetrated an affinity fraud against the Jewish community and would likely not have been able to pull it off if he were not Jewish. This is relevant to his notability per WP:LEDE and WP:MOSBIO. Unfortunately the consensus on wikipedia appears to be no Jewish labelling for a Jewish Fraudster, but Jewish labelling on _everything_ else - including Jewish astronauts, chess players, sportsmen etc.

I have no idea what the final solution will be, but am prepared to desist from nominations until a reasonable period of time has passed and I understand more about how wikipedia operates. Thanks for your helpful comments. Beganlocal (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole Jewish area has been a problem. I have lost discussions at the article level for stuff that is not notable in my mind but got kept because they were Jewish. So I am well aware of the sensitivity issues. I have also lost many discussions on CfD so I have some idea how editors can fell when, what they consider to be excellent nominations, fail to gain sufficient support. As you noted, you have stopped additional nominations. That may help. Just remember that OCAT is a guideline if you decide to nominate one of these in the future. The nomination itself is going to need to be very strong and address just about everything covered in the previous nominations. I hope you have learned from this and it helps make you a better contribute to the project. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Get unfairly accused of anti-semitism much? I like wikipedia, but think I would be a better contributor to the project if I focused on making contributions to non contentious areas. There are several financial articles which would benefit from clarification. Plenty to be done with BLPs also, especially helping new editors make contributions without breaking WP:BLP

The problem with contentious issues is that the vast majority back ideas that have been given to them by their culture, the media, etc without ever applying an incisive analysis. Controversial discussions often turn into a variety of mob rule and attack-the-editor. I can't be bothered with appeals to fear, adverse consequences, or ad hominem arguments. I'm not so much interested in "consensus" and "democracy" as I am with doing the correct thing for the correct reasons. While this may be subjective, I think it unquestionably calls for consistent application and logical reasoning behind decisions - taking responsibility in everything. Unfortunately, this is not how the majority of people choose to live their lives. This is their affair. I appreciate that views such as mine may not be welcome on a project which specifically advocates consensus. I will therefore try and restrict myself to contributions which will not fall foul of any ideological issues. Beganlocal (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think that pretty much everywhere you go in Wikipedia you may likely run into ideological issues of some kind. Just lead yourself not into the temptation of responding in kind, and play by the rules. If rules are violated, just take it to the appropriate noticeboard and politely state your case. Just today the issue on Sam Fuld was resolved. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Brown

Thanks for you comments. Gordon Brown was reassesed and Kept as a good article, Which is great. there are about 3 million articles and only about seven thousand good articles. I was going to raise up Tony Blair to good article status, but right now I have reduced energy for that. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

Blair

The Tony Blair page is currently a B class article I would like to work with you to raise up the quality of that article to good article status. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

NSS/Lehman/Bear

That doesn't really fall under the FRINGE rules, though one could argue that it doesn't deserve a separate section per WP:UNDUE. You may want to raise the subject in the article talk page if you want to press the point.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Runtshit

The vandal (whose identity is known, though we cannot yet establish this conclusively) is a right-wing Zionist who has a particular hatred for anti-Zionist Jews. If you study the edit pattern, you will see countless obscene attacks, not only on me, but on many others. You may also be able to draw your own conclusions about the identity of the specific person behind this. The same person is also responsible for the offensive blog, for incessant postings of blog comments under my name, and for spamming mailing lists with emails using other forged or stolen identities. Just report to AN/I, stating that this is Runtshit, and contributions will be removed immediately and the account blocked. RolandR 18:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your supportive comments. I contacted Blogger/Google two years ago about the blog; they refused to take any action. I'm not at home this week, so don't have their dismissive response to hand, though I have already quoted it on another editor's talk pge. Basically, they say that I must contact the editor directly; they will not intervene. Since they will not tell me who edits the site, there is no way I can do this; and in any case, as should be obvious, an appeal from me would be dismissed, and probably lampooned. If you want to know more about this, write to me offlne; there are details I cannot post on Wikipedia, including much well-attested evidence which has been removed from a biography here after an OTRS complaint. RolandR 21:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words?

Can you please detail your issues in this regard on the naked short selling talk page, as I don't recall the issue being raised. The article has problems, and I'm in partial agreement with some of your concerns, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. Also I'd suggest in the friendliest way possible that you not edit war over the Lehman issue but talk it out in the discussion page. I think there is room for compromise.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. As for your point re the length of the discussion, only the most recent posts are pertinent. The rest go back a ways.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Short squeezes

Hi, I am responding to this message:

"I note your edits on short squeezes. I feel I must inform you that your edit, while well intentioned, is incorrect. The progression of price in any instrument is decided in advance. Short squeezes are always deliberately induced: the intent is to cause the herd to liquidate their positions. A short squeeze does not occur by accident, or for other reasons. It does not occur where there are no shorts to be squeezed.

I would wish to revert your edit to the prior version. Saying "a short squeeze can be deliberately induced" suggests that there are circumstances where a squeeze is not intentional. This is not the case. Please provide examples of how a short squeeze would start were it not intentional."

This statement seems odd: "The progression of price in any instrument is decided in advance." If the price progression of a share was known in advance, we would all be millionaires, so I would be grateful if you would explain in case I have missed the point of what you are saying.

Short squeezes can occur wherever there are short positions in a stock, and the price rises sharply - for any reason whatsoever - contrary to the expectations of the short sellers. It is the nature of a short position that to exit it, one must buy the stock. As the short sellers all seek to buy the stock to cut their losses, the price rises further - the "short squeeze". No intent on anyone's part is required for this to occur, just the initial sharp rise in price, which may be caused by a macroeconomic event or other uncontrollable factor. Indeed, I would be surprised if you could find many examples of where a short squeeze has been shown to be deliberately induced, and not at all surprised if you could not find any. There are suspicions around the Porsche/VW squeeze due to the circumstances, but no actual evidence of anything so far as I know. Westmorlandia (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have put the query on the short (finance) talk page, which is probably the best place for the debate. See you there! Westmorlandia (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Westmorlandia. It's a question of supply vs. demand. If there is an increase in demand outstripping supply, a short squeeze can occur. It happens all the time. Let's say you short a drug company because you don't expect FDA approval for a drug. Then the FDA approves. Woo-hoo! BIG short squeeze. But it is not an "intentional" short squeeze, because the FDA is taking action on the product and not "intentionally" squeezing the shorts.

However, there are definitely instances in which squeezes are deliberately induced. As long as the section on squeezes makes a distinction between the two, I think all should be well. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation‎

Since this esoterica seems to interest you: you may want to wander by this article when you have a spare moment.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

DTCC

Sure. It seems to have settled down for the moment, but I'd watchlist it if I were you.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

Please take your time and consider that the article is a stable good article nit picking over small wording of content that is stable is disruptive to the article, consider more discussion b4 editing the article, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh okay. I realise you've worked for some time on this article and to good effect. I'll make more use of talk in the future. What do we think about the war powers stuff? It was either fantasy and never had a chance of being implemented (irrelevant to the article), or it was a sincere intention to formally move powers out of the RP which is as of yet unimplemented, with no timescale? Beganlocal (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Such powers are stable and have no chance of change, the parliament votes to support as it has done as long as I can remember, please don't be pointy on the article, it is tiresome and not beneficial to the article at all, if fact imo it is destructive to the article, there are so many articles that you could raise up to good article status yourself, excuse me if I appear short minded over your desires, I have become tiresome of such petty discussions. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Labourhome

If you dispute the notability then sent it to AFD to see what other people think or improve the article, the simple adding of a worthless template is of no value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)