User talk:Gatoclass/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive for July to September 2010


More "Kundalini Syndrome"

It has been my intention to counter some of the scary aspects of this article. What I did was read Dr. Kason's book, then jump right in without questioning the fundamental assumption that there is a Kundalini Syndrome that is recognized in psychiatry and listed in the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders IV. I also just assumed that the term had originated with Dr. Kason because she is so widely cited in the article and she does refer to kundalini in her book.

On further examination however, I have come to see the APA text does not even mention anything to do with kundalini. And neither Kason, Scotton nor Sovatsky - whose works I have been able to obtain - call it a syndrome.

I have also now become aware of the history of this article. It was originally just a copy and paste from the article on kundalini. I have also now read someone's lengthy remarks in the discussion under the title "Physio-Kundalini Syndrome - Kundalini experience/awakening". Their statement (in bold) that "Prana is basically a belief in magic" is simply outrageous and insulting to the millions who practice yoga daily - as is much of the rest of what they say.

What I like about Kason's work is:

  • her disposition AGAINST treating what she prefers to call Spiritually Transformative Experiences (STEs) as psychotic episodes. In her words: "This is why one of the reasons why labeling Spiritually Transformative Experiences can be so useful. Giving an unusual experience a non-pathological name - and learning that it has parallels in many cultural and spiritual traditions - helps us integrate it into our lives." (Kason, p. 56)
  • her assessment that mainstream psychiatry can be woefully incompetent in how it understands people undergoing STEs. In her words: "Dr. David Lukoff is one of the people working to heighten people's awareness... He has (also) put forward the idea that, although some people have mystical experiences that are associated with transient psychosis, these experiences are quite different from other types of psychoses in that they are relatively short-lived and tend to eventually resolve themselves spontaneously as long as the person is simply cared for supportively rather than being hospitalized in a psychiatric ward, labeled as delusional, and automatically medicated with the major tranquilizers used in these settings." (Kason, p. 256)

So - to get to the point - I would hope you would agree to one of three things:

  • to get rid of the article;
  • rename it "Physio-Kundalini Syndrome" because that term is use - but only by Greyson and Herrick;
  • allowing me to significantly edit the article beginning with the opening sentence which I added when I did not know better: "Kundalini syndrome is a term coined by transpersonal psychotherapist Yvonne Kason, M.D. in her book Farther Shores (1994)..." (It is not.) and adding to it some balancing information from the Kundalini Yoga traditions of Swami Sivananda Radha, Swami Muktananda, Swami Vivekananda, Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda and Yogi Bhajan. I know you deleted the Yogi Bhajan material because you felt it was overdone. Can we agree to either balancing this bogus article or getting rid of it entirely?Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


Thank you Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa for your dedicated research and review of the sourced materials for this topic. Your contributions as such add greatly to the improvements of such articles on Wikipedia. It would appear that this article and could be improved further under the rules of Verifiability and giving Giving Equal Value. Please also review the rules of Making Necessary Assumptions and Pseudoscience and related fringe theories to help improve your contributions on this article.

You make some well researched and valid points here. Gatoclass will probably not be qualified to respond to this, as his special focus is on articles relating to history and historical wars. Your first step would be to explore the Medical Research community and posting up your questions and requests on the Editor Assistance boards and then make contact Wikipedia's many Medical experts to achieve consensus on the changes. This will help strengthen your case for your improvements. Ultimately, you may consider posting this information on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, and at which point you may request the aid of other Administrators who will aid you in speeding up the approval of your proposed changes. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


Thanks. It's coming together. In my view, the biggest underlying problem with this article has been its ignorance of the original Western and Eastern sources on this subject. We have a bit of representation from the Eastern side now, but the yogis never called it a "syndrome". And now at last, I have been able to find Itzhak Bentov's book wherein he coined the term. That book had never even been mentioned in this article. Lee Sannella's work seminal work from 1976 has also remained uncited. I hope to have that soon.Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Kindly stop using my talk page as a chat page. This page is for comments addressed to me, not a venue for third parties to talk to one another. The appropriate venue for discussing content related to the Kundalini syndrome article is Talk:Kundalini syndrome. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Again?!

You said you are not interested in reviewing my DYK nominations. After that you tried to "maybe" one, expressed sorrow that you've missed another, and here we go again [1] What sources you did not like that time in the article that describes an event from 500 ED, and when you will keep your own promise and leave my nominations alone?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I never promised to leave your noms alone. Given that you have had difficulty in the past complying with DYK guidelines, it would be remiss of me not to check your submissions. I do try to leave decisions about your articles as much as practicable in the hands of other reviewers, but when I see obvious problems I am obliged to point them out.
In this particular case, if you take a careful look at the first reference in your article, the one simply entitled "Hymarite", you will see that it is in fact sourced back to Wikipedia. As Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, you will need to find a reliable source for that info if you want it to stay in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
You are mistaking, it is you, who had difficulties complying with DYK guidelines, when you removed my nomination fro the Queue, and were advised about it.
The reference you did not like is gone. Please take your "maybe" off, or come up with a new reason for it.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm just rechecking the article now. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Left a note there. You need to either find an additional cite or refactor the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


The hook is changed, the additional sources are found. Looking forward for more obstacles to my nomination. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

July 2010

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How come

you promoted the DYK for this article Hank Erickson, which is completely missing any reference for the section "Early career", but never stoped scrutinizing my articles over, and over, and over again? BTW it is not the first time you promote the articles that are missing references.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

SS Pacific

All materials in article have been thoroughly researched, referenced and posted. Please refrain from personal edits such as "quote bogus." Surely you agree removing properly researched and cited material without confirming its authenticity discourages the open forum and contributions Wikipedia is based upon. Ha68739 (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)HA68739

Hi

Hi Gato, thanks for helping me out with the article. One more editor supported it on DYK nomination. I do not mind deleting the quote from archeological finding section, and IMO the only issue we have to deal with are the dates. Most sources state it was about 500 ED. IMO it is not very important, if it was 500 ED or 420 ED, but if you believe it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, probably you could do a better job on it than I can, and then I hope you'll be able to take your objections out and let your article :) a green light.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


Tub'a Abu Kariba As'ad article

Hi just a word of advice. When citing references you should not really say google books. The real source would be

  • History of the Jews, Volume 3
  • History of the Jews, Heinrich Graetz
  • Authors Heinrich Graetz, Bella Löwy, Philipp Bloch
  • Publisher , 1902
  • Subjects Jews

Google books is merely a tool for holding the book. Please address this in your article. You should include the author, title, publisher, page number etc rather than saying "google books". Thanks.

"History of the Jews - Google Books". Books.google.com. Retrieved July 9, 2010.

This is not the way it should be done. It should say

  • "History of the Jews", Volume 3, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1902 {{citation}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

Some of the others need fixing too. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I didn't add those sources, but you are quite correct about that. I am not going to disqualify this for DYK on those grounds however, as this article has already been the subject of considerable discussion. It can be fixed later. Gatoclass (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Urgent DYK nomination

Hi Gatoclass, I draw your attention to this 11 July 2010 nomination, which I have hosted under the special occasion holding area. I believe both articles are appropriate for nomination, and I hope to have the hook published on the Main Page during 11 July, which also is the FIFA World Cup 2010 Final day. In fact, it would be excellent to place the hook in the right queue so that it comes out during the time period of the Final match which begins at UTC 20:30. I sincerely hope you find this request appropriate and relevant. Thanks, and great job as DYK caretaker! AngChenrui (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

TCO. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again

You are really doing a great job on Tub'a Abu Kariba As'ad, and I mean it! I will for sure ask for your help next time I write an article :) Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but as I said earlier, the time I can spend assisting other users with their articles is strictly limited given my other Wiki-activities. And of course, just because you happen to approve of my edits this time, does not necessarily mean you would do so on another occasion. Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Gato, I am not a hard-headed person. If I see a rationale behind the edits, I have no difficulties in approving them even, if I do not like them, and besides, I always appreciate the work other editors are doing, and as I said above you have done lot's of work on the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, good. Hopefully next time I feel the need to do some work on one of your articles, it won't result in the same sort of wikidrama. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tub'a Abu Kariba As'ad

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom Rowan

See 11 Jul for Edward L. Rowan. Would you consider this 'quirky'? It's certainly interesting. Alt hooks and article improvement invited. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would probably work as a quirky. I'm afraid I'm too tired to go reviewing any more hooks today though, if it's not verified by someone else I will give it the once over tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
You really like those two Rowan ALTs don't you ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
They did give me a chuckle :) Gatoclass (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
In a prep queue now, and since this has one of my noms, I won't move it out of prep, someone else will need to move it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Re: Unbalanced updates

Thanks for your concern, but if you check the edit history you will discover that I was not the person who put together the update in question.[2][3] The update in question was originally built at Template:Did you know/PrepExtra by Rlevse.[4] --Allen3 talk 02:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for change to be made in DYK Queue 3

Hi Gatoclass, I'm addressing this request to you since you're one of the main DYK admins. I'll try to keep it concise. If you look at Template:Did you know/Queue/3, you notice there are 4 articles (all about Michigan Wolverines) nominated for the second hook. I would like to add a fifth, which is the article titled '1996 Michigan Wolverines football team'. In other words, the hook will go "...records in years such as 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 include ...". I'm not the primary contributor to these articles, it's TonyTheTiger. However, the alternate hook (which has been picked) was proposed by me, so I believe adding another phrase will not matter much. The 1996 article nomination is still in the Template_talk:Did_you_know nominations page. If you wish to know, the reason why I'm doing all these is because the voracious (:d) TonyTheTiger has been constantly churning out year to year Michigan Wolverines football team article DYK nominations. It'll get boring if the same topic gets repeated on the Main Page again and again, hence my desire to merge where possible and desirable. Btw, I've alerted another admin just in case this somehow doesn't get through in time. Thanks, AngChenrui (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I imagine the 1996 article does not fit the hook, which is why it's been left out. Gatoclass (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I also suspect user: mbz1 of colluding with another user

I suspect mbz1 of colluding with user huey45 on the topic "art student scam."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Collusion in what sense? You can't just go making claims without evidence. Gatoclass (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What was the name of the other user who seemed to be helping mbz1?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to. Gatoclass (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You accused mbz1 of "Collusion between Broccoli and Mbz1"Preciseaccuracy (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 continues to collude with Broccoli. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Art_student_scam#Editors_supporting_the_proposalPreciseaccuracy (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=372275171Preciseaccuracy (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, given that Broccoli has not edited that article before, it does look a little suspicious. But one can't make much of a case out of a single example. Gatoclass (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

These are two completely separate events. You may have become friends with mbz1 since the previous allegations but it is clear that mbz1 is engaging in collusion.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

New article

Hi Gatoclass. I wrote a new article that I would like to ask you to take a look at Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib. If you have no time to copy edit, it's OK, I'll ask somebody else to help me out, but I would like you to tell me what do you think about the article in general. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I think it has some POV problems and needs some work. Are you planning to submit it to DYK? If so, I will tag it accordingly and try to do some work on it over the next few days to bring it up to speed. Thanks once again for letting me know in advance. Gatoclass (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do plan to submit it for DYK, and I will appreciate your help with the article. I will of course include you in my DYK nomination. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

THanks

Thanks for the medal Gato. I'm feeling like part of the furniture on DYK. Pleased to see your debates on DYK haven't got you down. I (nearly) always agree with what you say and am pleased to see you have the fortitude to say it. Well done to you too. Victuallers (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear "Gatoclass"

Please stop your hair trigger reaction to Yogi Bhajan citations in articles about kundalini. The man was master of kundalini yoga which clearly you are not.

This time you also deleted Swami Sivananda Radha's quotes. Why? Did you think she was a disciple of aforementioned yogi. She is not.

I would like balanced authoritative yoga articles as much as you, and perhaps I know the subject matter a little better. Kindly ease off on your trigger finger. This is an encyclopedia, not a shooting gallery. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you do not own kundalini articles. Yogi Bhajan's group is one of many and it's well out of the mainstream with its unique claims to be able to cure every sort of ailment with an assortment of "kriyas". There may be some ground to include some information about YB's teaching in the kundalini yoga article, but there is no reason at all to include his ideas in the kundalini or kundalini syndrome articles. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of your particular religious group nor any other. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I sure don't own kundalini articles, but I know a healing modality when I see it. My students do too. If you don't believe it works, try it. If you prefer to read about it, get Dr. Dharma Singh Khalsa or Dr. David Shannahoff-Khalsa's books. Get over your bias. If something works, it works. Am I saying it cures every sort of ailment? No I am not. That was your claim. Moreover, Kundalini Yoga has psychiatric applications and if Western-educated psychiatrists chose to use "kundalini" as the moniker to describe what they see in their practices, then kundalini yogis definitely have a lot to say about the phenomenon. You will just have to live with that. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Students? You teach Yogi Bhajan's kundalini yoga? Gatoclass (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me like the actions of tendentious and POV editing. Whereby it clearly states that; "The neutral point of view... requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." Gatoclass' actions on the Kundalini page follow a clear pattern of deletion [5] after deletion [6] and undos [7] of the facts without any research, or attempts to improve, verify or reach compromise on the wording. You have avoided several threads of discussions [8][9][10] on the discussion page, and gone straight to deletions even after being warned over 3 times. Consequently you are currently at risk of being cited for edit warring [11]. This is not the proper behavior of a neutral editor! RogerThatOne72 (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Physio-Kundalini Syndrome

I am lucky to work at a university which gives me access to all the sources for the so-called "Kundalini Syndrome" article. I have gone through all the most cited materials and have yet to find one that uses the term. Bruce Greyson uses the term "physio-kundalini syndrome". That's as close as it gets and for sake of accuracy, I have started the new article with most of the old material, which I am going through bit by bit. What do you do with an article called "Horses" that is really about zebras? That is my conundrum. I know kundalini very well, having practiced kundalini yoga for 38 years. What to do with a mis-titled article in wikipedia I don't know so well. Perhaps you do. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

GFSK, please see my response here at: More Kundalini Syndrome. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Removed quote

This quote from Guardian "He acknowledged that giving life might be a better way of winning Israeli understanding for the Palestinians' plight than blowing up children on buses." should stay in the article, maybe in a different format, but it should. Those are good words, the words against the violence. Besides in my understanding the man, who said it, did denounce the violence, and now perusing different means of the protest. I will not reinstall the quote, but without it, I am afraid I would have to withdraw DYK nomination. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed our conversation from my talk page because it is at the article's talk page now. I hope you do not mind. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

unomi

please see what the user redacted. Isn't this too much?--Mbz1 (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well he probably saw that as a personal attack. Users are entitled to remove personal attacks from talk pages. Gatoclass (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, if somebody writes something like that, and after that sees my comment as PA I do not want to deal with that .... some one. I do not own the article, and I will not object and/or revert other users edits to, but I will decline it on DYK. Besides in my understanding it was nominate for the deletion.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, he is obviously being sarcastic there, but I don't want to get drawn into personal conflicts between other users.
Are you really sure you want to withdraw it from DYK? I thought it was a nice story worth promoting but if you are really sure you want to withdraw it that's your prerogative. Given that it's just been AfD'ed by another user, it seems the objections to it are greater than I anticipated in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your vote in the AfD

Hi... I have a peculiar request - Can you (or I, if you allow me) reedit your vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv so as to look more like a real vote, for example " Rename or Merge " in the start of your comment. I just thought it will make it clearer that you're not withdrawing from voting, but merely changing the vote. I'll understand it if you wish to keep it as it is also. Cheers, Maashatra11 (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the closing admin will be smart enough to figure out what I !voted for :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought just in case... it seems like you commented instead of voting. Maashatra11 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe I'll change it a little later. I did try editing it, but the result didn't look quite right. Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem. :) Maashatra11 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You know what

After I have read some comments in the deletion request for the article I realized I have no right to cancel DYK for Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib. For example one user wrote: "Exceptionally poignant peace guesture very much deserving coverage". When I worked on the article I thought about peace. If this article could make few more people think about peace, I will be very, very happy. user:Maashatra11 took the hook out, when I withdrawn it, but if the article will survive the deletion request, if it is possible, please do promote it. I will try to avoid editing it now. I trust you will be fair. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I will restore the nom when the AfD is finished, assuming it passes. Gatoclass (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib

Gatoclass, please take a look at the user:Maashatra11 contributions. The user is so concerned about the article that they split it in two, just after deletion request was closed. BTW now, when AFD is closed, could the hook be placed in one of the DYK Queue please? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv

Hi Gatoclass, DYK hook for this article was already in a Queue, when it was nominated on deletion and removed from there. Could you please add it directly to Queue now, when the deletion request is over. We have agreed to let it appear at DYK first, and discuss the merge after DYK is over. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what was the original hook? Gatoclass (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, replied on your talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather you'll do it. I am not in hurry. One, two days doesn't matter, does it? The hook is here. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I have restored it to T:TDYK. I think it's best if someone else restores it to the queue per our usual procedures. Gatoclass (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, it is nice of you!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
No probs. Gatoclass (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

zubeidi quote

Hi, you mentioned some agreement regarding the quote, could you point me to where that was reached? Unomi (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See this thread. Gatoclass (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The only thing that I see there is that Mbz1 removed the DYK nomination and vowed to take the article off her watchlist etc. I don't see that the claims of propaganda are valid, it seems clear from the sources that the donations were in fact supported - not just empty words. The context of (what the international community labels as) military occupation is vital to understanding the depth of the generosity / humanity expressed. Unomi (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Well then you can't have read it too carefully. Mbz agreed to the quote from the mother as a substitute for the Zubeidi quote. You yourself said (I quote): As I understand that the DYK nomination is held hostage contingent on the removal of the quote and that DYK is apparently held to be a 'big deal', out of respect for the involved parties I will hold off from editing the article rather than contribute to a deadlock situation, so at that point all parties had agreed to compromise on that point. I too think the Zubeidi quote was interesting and worth retaining - indeed I think more material could have been added, and perhaps if there hadn't been an AfD I would have continued working on it - but we can't always have everything our way. Yes, the article could have been a lot better, but this is the version that was agreed upon for DYK. If you want to continue improving it after it's off the main page, that of course is your prerogative. Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes I did make those comments and the response to that was Mbz1 withdrawing the DYK nomination and commencement of more drama. I spent hours collecting supporting sources and making them available. I realize that you are trying to keep the peace, and I respect the work that you are doing with DYK and elsewhere, I also know that you and Mbz1 have had a somewhat strained relationship and would probably prefer to not push back too hard. That said, it is completely unreasonable that the content of an article can be constrained by an editor solely on the basis of them having initially submitted a (later withdrawn) DYK hook. Best, Unomi (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If you added quote from the mother please remove the other one. It should be fair!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Look, I thought we had a stable article, and that everyone was agreed on the content. It appears I was wrong about that, as Broccoli suddenly decided to start deleting material when it reached the main page. In response to that I decided to restore a previously agreed upon version as a compromise, but now Unomi disagrees with that. If Broccoli and Unomi want to start edit warring over the content I can't stop them and I really don't want to get involved. All I did was resort the quotes so that the mother has the last word rather than some self-serving politician. I think that is in keeping with the spirit of the article. Gatoclass (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
We did have a stable article, the quote was in there during afd, with multiple editors adding and copy-editing, at no point in time was that quote contested or even sought argued against. As for trying for some parity between the top section and the bottom one, that is unfair to to the weight of the sources. Unomi (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Toilet water

Your input to T:TDYK#Toilet water would be appreciated. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 16:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is anything further I can do to get the article approved for DYK please let me know. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 10:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Withdrew the original hook and submitted ALT1 in its place.--Doug Coldwell talk 10:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you might like ALT2 better of the Czarina of Russia hook?--Doug Coldwell talk 19:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

reference question

You disqualified Elaine Quijano for unformatted references. Please reformat reference 3 and I will see how you do it and do the rest. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Stats tool

Can we get the tool that does the stats at T:DYK/Q#Current_number_of_hooks_on_the_suggestions_page off of ThadB's puter and onto the tool server so someone can fix it when it breaks? It breaks constantly and right now it's been broken for over two days. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK black-belt

Hey Gato. I could use an opinion from a DYK black-belt. I jumped in on MV Mariam to expand its content as an AFD. Currently it was expanded 5x since 25 August, has 2600 characters, and while the AFD is still open, it looks to me like it will close with a keep. Does anything in the article jump out at you that would disqualify the article from a DYK? Thanks much. HausTalk 10:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If it survives AfD I think it would be rather difficult to disqualify it at DYK on notability grounds, so I imagine it would probably pass at DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I'll nom it if it survives AfD. HausTalk 11:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
You should nom it before as it may not accepted if it is nommed more than five days after the start of the expansion. Gatoclass (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Done and done. Thanks for the tip! HausTalk 12:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for taking the time to examine my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between criticism and a personal attack. Apologies if it came across too harsh. It has nothing to do with you being competent or not. I believe you have let a few editors walk when they should have received a sanction is all. It was related to the issue at hand and crying foul was a little much. This was really all that was needed to clear up the concern. The rest of the exchange was unnecessary. Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Cptnono, there is a difference between legitimate criticism and a personal attack. Legitimate criticism cites evidence. When you don't cite evidence, but just make random comments about somebody's alleged shortcomings, that is not legitimate criticism but slander.
You, for example, claimed that I have "been involved in essentially policing and commenting in the topic area for some time" and that I "have not done very well as an admin when it comes to taking care of what needs to be taken care of". These are not merely slanders, but falsehoods. As an involved user on the I-P pages, I have no administrative role at all, except perhaps to try and lead by example. If I did try to use my admin tools in the topic area in question, there would be hell to pay. But you dishonestly claimed that I was failing to "police" I-P pages adequately when "policing" of such pages is necessarily left to uninvolved admins. You said I "cannot make the tough decisions in this topic area" when again, those "tough decisions" are for uninvolved admins to make and not for involved users like myself. And you finished with the completely unsubstantiated claim that I have "previously made decisions that negatively impacted the topic are" without providing a single concrete example.
Yes, I'm afraid your post was a textbook example of inappropriate commentary on another user, and you should not be suprised that you were called on it. Likewise, you should not be suprised, should you repeat such tactics in future, to find yourself the subject of an AE case of your own. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow really? So instead of accepting the apology and getting over it you get all knee-jerky? Feel free to open up an AE if you took such offense. It looks like you are over reacting. Another editor pretty much told you everything that needs to be said over at AE..Cptnono (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
You call that an apology? It was no such thing - in fact it was no more than a reiteration of your previous falsehoods. Please stop misstating the record. Gatoclass (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
So since AE was not the place to go into detail and you refuse to accept that you might have made some errors in letting certain editors get away with too much I will provide a couple examples
In this current case, you were going to act like an uninvolved admin and asked for the case to stay open until you review it. That is certainly policing and commenting in the topic area. I was simply pointing out that the admin who originally made the enforcement showed a little more needed umph in his decision then I thought you would. And you have commented as an uninvolved admin in another case which you were certainly involved in so it isn't just about using tools. Here is one [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive50]. There was one that jumped out in my mind first but I cannot track it down at the moment so hopefully you will not consider it offensive if I do not have the diff readily available. Another editor recently provided you with yet another one in the currenntly open case. Instead of acting overly defensive you should consider why an editor would make such a comment. Or why other editors would express concerns like [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive59 here]. You are free to disagree but screaming about it being slanderous isn't going to convince me that you have previously made some errors. No one is perfect so accepting that is the first step. Not all of our comments at AE have been terrible or anything so don't take it that way. Cptnono (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Anybody has a right to comment on an AE case, but the only people who police it are the uninvolved admins who make a decision about it. Obviously I try to influence the adjudicating admins, as does everyone who comments, but it's their call and no-one else's.
I reject your claim that I tried "to act like an uninvolved admin", I think PhilKnight is perfectly well aware by now that I am involved in the I-P area and I merely added a note to that section because (a) another user had already done so, and (b) because I didn't want my response to be overlooked. Once it had been responded to, I moved it back to the comments section. AE is a poorly defined process and its few rules are honoured more in the breach than the observance, I observe them more closely than most but in a regime when numerous others are repeatedly ignoring the rules it's hardly fair to single out my very occasional breaches for attention. Gatoclass (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Well reject it all you want. You don't need to accept the criticism and I don't need to convince you too. We are obviously at an impasse.Cptnono (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
And one thing that I was incorrect on was saying that you made decisions that negatively impacted the topic area. You have made comments not decisions. These have at times been as an uninvolved admin when you were involved, but no, I cannot provide diffs where you actually closed something without taking enough action. I was originally under the impression that you did (and might look for some more diffs to verify) and I think your comments as both an admin and an involved editor alone have been bad enough but there is a difference between commenting and actually making the final call.
(edit conflict): Yes, you were incorrect, thank you for correcting that. You are entitled to the belief that my judgement calls have been "bad", but then as someone on the other side of the political fence, you would hardly be likely to agree with them. For the record, I consider both Nableezy and Tiamut to be worthwhile contributors to the I-P topic area and I stand by my defence of them. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I would like to make a request of you with regard to my appeal, and please don't mistake my intentions. I would not ask that you or anyone else judge one way or the other. However, it seems to me you are the only one being reasonable and actually examining my appeal and substantively addressing the underlying issues. Three other admins, PhilKnight, CIreland, and EdJohnston stated their support for the ban and rejection of my appeal, yet not one of them substantively addressed the basis for the appeal, and not one of them offered anything in the way of substantiation for the underlying assumption that I had done something inappropriate and in violation of Wikipedia policy that would warrant this ban. I've requested on their talk pages that they substantively address the basis for my appeal and offer just a single example to demonstrate that I had so warranted this ban. Please support me in this perfectly reasonable request. As I also told them, if I had indeed done something to warrant this ban, I would be happy to acknowledge my error and apologize to anyone I may have offended with whatever alleged behavior they are basing their judgment on. But given the fact that Wgfinley felt it necessary to demonstrably fabricate a deliberate falsehood in order to make his case (which any of you can verify for yourselves), and given the fact that none of these other admins offered anything else to substantiate the underlying assumption of wrong behavior, it seems to me that a ban based upon a demonstrably prejudicial and spurious pretext is to be upheld by means of further prejudicial treatment. Is it too much to ask that a reasonable basis for this ban be offered to me? Is it to much to ask that the accusations against my character and claims of wrongful behavior actually be substantiated, with something more than the deliberate lie and mischaracterizations of Wgfinley, who I've also demonstrated has a clear record of prejudicial treatment against me? Again, I'm not asking for admins to judge one way or the other. All I'm asking for is to be treated fairly and for admins to be reasonable by addressing the basis for my appeal and, if they would deny it, to offer something in the way of substantiation for their opinions. In other words, all I'm asking for is that people be reasonable, so I would respectfully request that you please support me in this reasonable request at my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is only a limited amount I can do. I did offer to take a detailed look into your interactions in order to make a definitive judgement, but that offer was ignored as it appears the uninvolved admins have already made their own judgement.
In regards to that judgement, it appears there is a widespread perception that you are intransigent and combative and unwilling to cooperate with others to find a middle ground - that you are taking a "my way or the highway approach". I never got the time to thoroughly go through all the diffs but certainly I have at times noted such tendencies in your editing. Where I differ with the other admins who have commented is that I think you entitled to be given an opportunity to adjust your style in the same way as any new editor is given some leeway. But it appears the ban is going to stand.
So I'm afraid there isn't much more I can do to assist at this point. If in future you find yourself at loggerheads with other editors, drop me a note and I'll see what I can do to defuse the situation. It's difficult to give general advice but for particular situations I might be able to offer some guidance. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how a ban can remain in place when the pretext for it is based on demonstrable deliberate lies and willful mischaracterizations, with not even a single example of a ban-able offense being presented to support its continuance, and with not even a single person -- with you being the sole exception -- having substantively addressed my argument for appeal. Would you please just ask the others to present even just a single example to support their characterizations of me? Good God, that's all I'm asking for, just a single example where I've violated policy. I can't very well tell people I won't do something again when I don't know what it is they think I've done that warranted this ban (apart from Wgfinley's lies).
You say you agree I've been "combative". Certainly. As has pretty much every other editor there. It's tough not to get combative when there is constant edit warring going on, and when others constantly employ ad hominem arguments against you and such, rather than addressing the facts and logic of your argument. I hardly think this warrants a ban.
You say I've been "intransigent" and "unwilling to cooperate". I challenge you to present a single example that would support this characterization, which I absolutely reject. I have made every effort to try to reason with people, and where people have agreed to be reasonable (that is, to engage in a logical discussion of the facts), the cooperation has been very fruitful. The problem is that certain editors refuse to be reasoned with, such as by refusing to address the facts and logic I present to support my positions. I'd be happy to present you with incontrovertible examples if you'd like.
Would you please just post a brief comment saying that all I'm asking for is for an example to be given to me of something I did wrong that would warrant this ban and request that the admins rejecting my appeal please do so? JRHammond (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't do any good if I did. The other admins have already made up their minds. If I was able to present a comprehensive case in your favour, it might sway their judgement, but with three full archive pages of discussion, as well as lengthy discussions on various user pages, it becomes very difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff. In any case, it's not necessarily about individual diffs. Taken individually, I can see very few of your posts that are problematic. What your critics are arguing is that there is an overall pattern of intransigence and filibustering, and that's not something that can really be demonstrated with individual diffs. Gatoclass (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It need not be a single diff. A serious would do. Whatever. The point is, all I'm asking is that these claims be substantiated! I came here to work to improve the article. I didn't come here to waste my time with all this bullshit. I have better things to do with my time. I'm done wasting my time trying to reason with people who refuse to be reasoned with. JRHammond (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Broken heading on Israeli Apartheid

Hi Gatoclass,

I know the page is protected: it looks like there is a broken heading. The section on "critics of the analogy" lists supporters and their arguments. I'm wondering if it can be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.247.140 (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Gatoclass, I'm having a dispute, once again, involving WGFinley, where he is again issuing veiled threats to ban me from yet another article, on the alleged grounds that I'm refusing to consider others' arguments. I've proposed an edit that NoMoreMisterNiceGuy and WGFinley are objecting to on the basis that I've violated WP:SYNTH. I maintain that the statements I've proposed adding to the article are completely factually accurate, and that their accuracy can be verified from the sources given. I maintain that the latter is absolutely incontrovertible. I've avoided even paraphrasing and instead quoted directly from the source at length after having revised my proposed edit numerous times in an effort to satisfy the stated objections. Yet every time I revise in an attempt to change the wording they identify as problematic, they simply repeat their objections that I'm "synthing". I keep asking them questions to clarify their objections and explain in what way the sources don't verifiably state what I say they state, and in what way they think I have "synthed" by drawing any conclusions, making my own analysis, etc., and they have refused for the most part to answer my questions. They just keep repeating "synth", "synth", "synth" over and over without any actual argument as to why this is so. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take the time to review my proposed edit, their objections, and my replies, and comment with your view so as to help resolve the dispute. If you agree I've violated WP:SYNTH, perhaps you could explain to me how this is so, so that I can resolve the issue. I feel confident, however, that you will find this not to be the case. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a few moments to review the matter here and mediate:[12] Thank you. JRHammond (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the substance of the dispute yet, but where is WGF making "veiled threats" to ban you from the article? I couldn't see that on the talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning for bias

Gateoclass, you cannot use ignorance of Kundalini Yoga as your own POV basis for original research and denial of history. See: [13]. Until such time that 3rd parties may mediate this dispute (see: [14] and [15], please do not make any further reversions to the page. You have been warned so many times, and you have not shown any effort to improve this page nor ever WP:AGF. I'm sorry to have to do this. Any further changes to the page without an outside editor request or mediation will be reported. This really really is the final warning. You need to chill out and relax and stop gaming the system. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been reported for edit warring. Please take note. Enough warning have been given, and you have not shown a willingness to make improvements to the leading opener to Kundalini Yoga. [16]. Sorry brother. You brought this on yourself. Ignorance of the subject matter is not a valid enough reason for your continued reversions. --RogerThatOne72 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yogi Bhajan series

Just so you're aware, we just had a brief discussion on this at User_talk:YellowMonkey#CU_please and your name came up there. RTO72 is a sock of Fatehji and the IP is his too. I'm going to be off-wiki for a few days so I won't be able to respond quickly. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sep 8

Can you approve or disapprove this: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_September_8. Tks. 9 and 10 Sep are all processed now. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done some work on it now, see what you think... Thanks. EdChem (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Re this edit, April 1999 to December 1999 (dates confirmed by the sherdog reference) is 8 months... "only a year" refers to a later fight in his career. EdChem (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you can assume that he only turned professional just before his first pro fight. The second ref. says he turned pro a year before the EE final, and I think we should stick to that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
No wait, you are correct, I missed the fact that the ref. wasn't referring to a current fight, but an old one. Thanks for the fix. Gatoclass (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem, glad we've got it sorted out. Rlevse will be pleased to get it off T:TDYK too.  :) Regards, EdChem (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Michigan_basketball_overload.2C_part_2

Based on your prior comments at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_September_14, you may be interested/willing to approve the new multis at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Michigan_basketball_overload.2C_part_2. Please consider doing so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park

What is the policy here; article was a copy job, someone whacks it and starts over on 16 Sep? To me, I'd say if it's sufficiently different from the prior version, IAR and allow it. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied at the nom. Gatoclass (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gatoclass/Archive_13&oldid=1141550726"