User talk:Steven J. Anderson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Dead Herr Frick

Greetings! Concerning the display of the picture of dead high Nazi official Wilhelm Frick, I noticed that you restored it when an anonymous user did away with it. After editing and expanding the article I have respected your opinion. However, no argument intended, I would like to understand the rationale behind displaying pictures such as that one. - Xufanc (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The book and author were unknown to me. The article lacked references. When I googled for material indicting Frick and his role in the concentration camps, I found the sentence that appeared on that site: "Frick, like Göring, was accused of responsibility for the existence of the Nazi concentration camps" much to the point. I should have checked the rest of the site (as well as the context) better. I have corrected it. Thank you for pointing out the error. Thank you also for taking time to explain about the purpose of the dead man's picture.- Xufanc (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

Your edit summary on Blood libel was not appropriate and was not civil. Please work on this dificiency. If lible is by definition false, then false is redundant. If you wish to continue this, please use the talk page rather than summaries to dicuss issues. Cordially,Die4Dixie (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Blood Libel

Sorry if I overreacted at the page. I have stricken some of my comments that were wrong and other of which I am ashamed. I really have concerns about original research and some of the writing. I have no problem with readers knowing up front that the concensus of scholarship is that this Libel. i hope that we can work on this colegially, and again, my apologies.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Thank you so much Steven :) Best regards mate. --Umkhontto (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Text in Bible Society

The text you just restored to Bible society is in fact a verbatim quote from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article "Bible Societies". It's actually just part of a sentence. So it is cite-able, although the claim is a little bit POV-y. David Brooks (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC) [edit]

Spam

I notice your repeated attempts to place links to and promotional information about a book published by Spectre Publishing, a firm with which you have a connection, on the Jimmy Hoffa article. This violates Wikipedia's spam policies which can be found at WP:SPAM. Please stop. More on this can be found at the Jimmy Hoffa talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Stephen,

The book I believe you are referring to, I Heard You Paint Houses by Charles Brandt is not a Spectre Publishing Book. I have been involved in the Hoffa investigation with Charles since June 2006. The information you have deleted is part of the continuing investigation into the case. Please email me or call me if you have any questions regarding what we found. Because of wikipedia I have been contacted by other investigators who have interest in the case. My contact info is on the website for Spectre Publishing. I will explain everything to you, then if you feel its relevant, then maybe you can add it to the page. Give me a call. Jeff --Spectre7277 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

about asking for unprotection

Sorry Steven, thats right, I am new here, But I did not try to bypass WP:RFP I saw that the first step is to talk to the editor that blocked it only AFTER that you can put a request there. here is the quote "If you are requesting unprotection, it is almost always a good idea to ask the protecting admin first before listing a page here."--Jena0987 (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Frank Sheeran

I appreciate your efforts to fight spam on the Frank Sheeran page, but I think the reference to the book ought to stay in there. The book is, after all, the basis for his notability.--john.james (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you justify removing a reference to the book because it gives "undue weight"?

--AJim (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Steven. I replied to your note in place, on my talk page. --AJim (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Makow

Thanks for keeping your eye on Makow's page. I appreciate your restoration of the remark from the cover of his Filipino handbook--it's a very distasteful remark, but it's also about the only thing that can be said about such an eminently non-notable book. Anyway, thanks again! Drmies (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

question

I usually do not like to go against consensus, and I think an argument over spelling is usually a waste of time. But the American heritage 4th edition spells it "anti-semite" with a hyphen, it is not US/UK thing ... I missed the original discussion over spelling, can you summarize for me how and why it as agreed not to use the hyphen? (Extensive discussion concerning this matter follows on the Jesus talk page ... for now, I am trying to let it rest, but it concerns me) Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

advice

Is this comment veiled antisemitism ... or am I oversensitive? (there is following discussion on the Jesus talk page ... for now I am trying to drop it, but the whole thread does concern me) Slrubenstein | Talk 21:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not mean to harp on this, but I am turning to you because there is obviously no point in my engaging Stevertigo and if I contribute to the talk section on the Jesus page, I will only be accused of making trouble. But I am troubled ...

Recently, Stevertigo wrote,

Why? Because dealing with Yeshua means dealing with Yeshu, and that means dealing with the extremely pejorative interpretation of that name,

No, Yeshua does not force us to deal with Yeshu. Moreover, there is nothing pejorative about the name Yeshu. There are stories in the Talmud about a character named Yeshu. Scholars are divided as to whether this refers to Jesus - that is the controversy, does Yeshu refer to Jesus? There is a controversy in part because no one knows what Jesus' name actually was in Hebrew or Aramaic. Moreover, if the character is not Jesus, then the stories cannot possible be pejorative against Jesus. There are some modern Talmud scholars who claim they are about Jesus, but they interpret the stories not as being pejorative but rather ambivalent and expressing Rabbis ambivalence towards Jesus and Christianity. Point: Stevertigo's claims are either wrong or distortions, and simply reveal that he does not understand what he is talking about.

not to mention the Toledoth Yeshu, which may have had some small part in inspiring a couple hundred years of academic Christian anti-Semitism.

The Toledoth Yeshu, a set of medieval texts, are anti-Christian. But if you know anything about medieval history, you would know that these rabbis were reacting against Christian anti-Judaism. To blame these texts for anti-Semitism is perverse. First, it is bad scholarship because it proposes an effect to be a cause (the stories came after anti-semitism, not before). Second, they blame the victim.

There is no point in my saying any of this on the talk page, it would only inflame Stevertigo more.

But I really am concerned about what I perceive to be his unnecessary "blaming the victim" when it comes to the Toledoth Yeshu texts (texts which need not even be mentioned in this discussion since they are NOT historical texts, have no value in historical research on Jesus, and do not need to be brought into a discussion about "Jesus's original name." I did not bring them up. Andrew Card Did not bring them up. Stevertigo did. Why? They are not relevant to the issue under discussion. I can only conclude he brings them up in order to blame the victim. But why? I am genuinely puzzled. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Detroit Free Press Article link Deleted?

On July 8th 2007, the Detroit Free Press published a story about a former Detroit Police Officer named Jeff Hansen who claimed that he discovered cremation ovens at the Grand Lawn Cemetery, which is only a few blocks away from the house in Detroit where Frank Sheeran claimed to have killed Jimmy Hoffa.*[1]

Why was the article link and the July 8th 2007 paragraph deleted? It was verified, was written by myself, not anyone associated with spectre publishing. This is over editing at its worst. --Nugglesmom (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Note this was cut and pasted to several talk pages. I've opened a sockpuppet investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spectre7277 tedder (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet. I don't know who the other party is, I believe I made an apology on the discussion board in question.--Spectre7277 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Hi Steven, just a courtesy to let you know that the rollbacking of your edit to the Holocaust denial talk page was completely accidental. Feel free to WP:TROUT me as necessary. Best, WilliamH (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch

In re this diff... nice catch. You were correct in how it appeared. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ronabop

I thought I put the four tidies (~) in ... yours are missing. :) Wallie (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Update. Looks like this is directed at Ronabop. I have highlighted that on his talkpage. :) Wallie (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

:) Wallie (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Josephus

Steven Anderson. I understand that you operate always in good faith. I am here trying to obtain a consensus with you. The claim is not about me or my family. I am Pereira, not Perahia. Please, check the references and my post on the discussion page, and give me your honest opinion. (don’t take it personal). I believe that you can help me add only a short sentence on Josephus article with Molhos reference as reliable source. Please, let`s reach a consensus. Thanks and Regards. --Chris Cohen (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann Sources

Perhaps I didn't state the fact clearly enough. The sources describing Olbermann as an advocate for liberalism were already cited on the specific sentence I modified. Read those sources and see for yourself. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I've just proposed merging Unification Church and antisemitism (which you worked on) into Divine Principle. Please join in the discussion, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Backgammon GAR notification

Backgammon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism Borock (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename

I suggested renaming Unification Church antisemitism controversy to "Divine Principle antisemitism controversy." Please give you opinion on the talk page if you like.Steve Dufour (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Creation Museum blog

I'm not a creationist (as evidenced by my contributions). I used that source just as a direct quote that Ken Ham acknowledged that the incident occurred (or that his version of it occurred - that's why I cited it just as a statement from Ken Ham, not as a verifiable account of the incident). On Google, I wasn't able to find a major website which covered this incident other than the Creation "museum"'s blog.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

bravo

Excellent summation, sir. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Tx --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"No consensus. Combative. Pointy"

How is replacing File:Israel'sDepartmentStoreboycott.jpg, a low-quality image illegimately claimed as "Fair Use", with File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-14469, Berlin, Boykott-Posten vor jüdischem Warenhaus.jpg, the very same image is much better quality, Free licence and clear copyright status, "No consensus. Combative. Pointy"? Rama (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Self-reverted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Sorry for my tone. Cheers! Rama (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Hi Steven. I think you are being both rude and dismissive to Majorcrackdown on Talk:Antisemitism. I refer to your comments such as "are you only here to haunt this talk page with useless, unproductive drivel" and "It's not unheard of for editors who are not here to build an encyclopedia to be asked to leave" and ignoring comments to snipe at spelling (when, ironically, the spelling was correct...). This attitude can be seen as uncivil, could you please try to be nicer to a new editor? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond here only for the sake of completeness, as I think this is de-facto closed. No admin is going to find a consensus in favor of the move he proposes so it's not going to happen. What Majorcrackdown is doing is classic talk-page disruption. It works like this: Go to a talk page and propose something that you know most of the regular editors of the page will oppose. Let them reply. Then filibuster, making sure to be as vexatious, contrary and difficult as you can possibly be. If you really want to piss everyone off, make sure to bring up an issue that's been discussed dozens of times already and on which there's a clear, long-standing consensus. Then never shut up. No matter how clear it is that consensus is against you, keep filibustering until everyone you're interacting with wants to choke the shit out of you. Some of them will desert the page in disgust. Some will hang around and argue. If you're really lucky, you might piss someone off enough that he says something that gets him sanctioned. Either way, you win. You've made life unpleasant for a few Wikipedians. And if anyone points out that you're doing what you're doing, they'll get a nice message on your talk page like the one you left me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Stormfront

My edits to the Stormfront article were not "nonsense." Please address the concerns I stated on the article's talk page. --68.118.202.49 (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ark of the Covenant Article

I'm just wondering:

1) What "better art" you have to depict The Ark
2) You take time to remove my picture, while the article itself has several critical mistakes that you most certainly DO NOT have time to correct.

Aleksig6 (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

1) By "better art", I mean the pictures that are already in the article.

2) I can't fix every mistake on Wikipedia. If you see "critical mistakes" on the article, feel free to correct them.

Since there's a clear dispute about whether to include those pictures, your next step is to discuss it on Talk:Ark of the Covenant. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RE #1 - I see...
RE#2 - Not a chance: I feel hostility towards my geniune intention to contribute - you do not greet someone with bashing.
RE Talk article: Sure. These were just personal questions for you... Aleksig6 (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I will admit that I have a tendency to be terse in my edit summaries. There's only space for so many characters. I certainly didn't mean to bash or denigrate anything you were doing, just communicate my views on the matter. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are lucky... I have started doing the corrections on the "Ark of The Covenant" article on my personal wiki page before that whole thing with images has started. Its right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aleksig6#Ark_of_The_Covenant - you can review it and make that correction to the original article(last sentence of the first paragraph).
LaterAleksig6 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Moses as Symbol

Re:Moses as symbol in American history, I'm honestly hoping you can do something it seems no one has done, namely, to explain with some clarity and from your perspective as someone with obvious depth into this topic, the problem with the article. Let me be clear, I'm not trying or expecting to change your mind, and with a unanimous consensus to delete it wouldn't matter. And note that you are the only editor I'm contacting on their talk page - all comments so far have been on the article's talk or the AfD page. But I see you may have some real depth of knowledge about Jewish history, unlike the other editors.

Your initial comment on the talk page was, "It's hardly anything more than a laundry list of pop culture references to people being compared to Moses." As there were many similar comments, all coming in rapid succession, I made no comments and none were requested anyway. However, when I requested some honest explanation about the OR and SYNTH being an obvious attribute, jokingly asking for "volunteers," no one has explained. See: Talk:Moses_as_symbol_in_American_history#Volunteer_wanted. But as you are the only one who seems close to the subject area, I'm kindly requesting a few minutes of your time to explain the OR and SYNTH connection to the article. It's due to be deleted at any time, as you probably know, but after it is, it would really help to understand why. If you pass, no problem. If you can explain on the articles talk page, that would help. After 4 days of posting the question, not one explanation has been attempted. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Trictrac

I notice that Trictrac is on your to-do list. Probably you're already aware, but this [2] is an excellent source, including the only comprehensible English rules for Trictrac I've ever seen. (In my opinion, Murray and Parlett are not sufficiently complete or clear.) Fiske (Chess in Iceland) has a lot of historical and (as I recall) etymological information; his book is scanned at least twice in Google books, but the scans are not of good quality, so I've had to consult different scans for different pages. Of course, if you read French, you've probably got plenty of sources already. Phil wink (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Hoffa

I noticed from this article that I was not the only one trying to add the Urban Legend about the burial place on the article. Maybe there should be a notice in the discussion page not to add them.--RicHard-59 (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Zeev Tzahor and Auschwitz lie

I would like to return to question of Auschwitz lie and Zeev Tzahor. Here are references

. Please consider if historian may put responsibility of Nazi crimes on other nation that actually committed it?

Moreover, googling for "Zeev Tzahor Auschwitz lier" returns couple of pages. It is proof that growing number of people considre his statements Auschwitz lie Cautious (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

1. The link you posted is to some kind of list of reader comments to a news story. This fails both WP:RS and WP:V (and probably some other policies).

2. The correct place to discuss this is at the talk page of the article where you wish to make the changes. (Holocaust denial? I've forgotten.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit

Hi, I am curious about [this] edit, as the source strikes me to be clearly about the subject matter of the section. Unomi (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Judaism

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Judaism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

13 principles of logic

I have added the above to the Judaism article; Wikiwatcher keeps deleting it because it is just one man's opinion and esoteric. I am happy to discuss at length with you why I think this is important but for starts, I think the articl is sorely lacking in balance when it emphasizes doctrine and ritual over other elements of Judaism (e.g. Torah Study, that Jews have developed their own principles of logic and jurisprudence). Anyway, I hope you will comment. Happy Shavuot, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs vs. websites

This is a blog: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/

This is a website: http://vho.org/

The latter is allowed under WP rules, the former is not.

WP rules need to be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortagravatas (talk • contribs) 13:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the website you link to is not a reliable source under Wikipedia's rules, not for anything but its own views. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So websites are deemed reliable or not depending on their content whereas blogs are never deemed reliable, regardless of content. What's the reason for this distinction? I hope it's not that "anyone can make a blog", which applies to websites as well.

The blog http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/ is easily the main source of Mattogno criticism and one of the main sources of denier criticism in general. It's activity so much worries "Revisionists" that it has been mentioned in the book "Debating the Holocaust", by "Thomas Dalton phD" (whose claims are the subject of several articles under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/search/label/Dalton ). Shouldn't it therefore be mentioned on Wikipedia pages about HD in general and Mattogno in particular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortagravatas (talk • contribs) 15:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think you understand. The content of a website is not the issue. The website for Castle Hill Publishing which you link to above is clearly not a reliable source except for very limited purposes. Those purposes are to document the positions taken by Castle Hill Publishing and its authors, not to establish the truth, validity, or soundness of any of their claims.

Additionally, personal websites of the sort you mention, which you rightly point out "anyone can make", and blogs are also not reliable sources, with certain limited exceptions. If you (or I) were a notable person of some sort and created a blog documenting your positions on the field in which you were notable, for instance, that might be considered a reliable source for the purpose of verifying what your views on the subject are, but that's all.

Also, your repeated posting of links to a blog that is evidently your own probably violates WP:SPAM and may result in your site being blacklisted.

I sincerely hope this clarifies the matter for you. I'm not trying to be combative or unpleasant. If I've been unsuccessful, you may find WP:EL or WP:RS helpful.

Re: ANI

You requested an admins input on NLT, so I've given mine and closed the thread again. I closed it in the first place because keeping those types of debates going only helps to fuel the legal debating. The legal stuff, while absurd isn't really worth blocking over. If he keeps edit warring, find me or any other admin. Brandon (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Lonnie Frisbee

Please keep your comments on-topic and don't comment on the editors as you did here. Wikipedia considers commenting on the personality of editors as a personal attack. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What's going on with the NPA stuff?

I don't understand why my edit was redacted. I mentioned no one, it is simply fact that an editor has labelled themselves a creationist (well, at least two) on their talk pages and then removed the word myth. And no one has discussed this with me. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I didn't redact anything. Maybe the person who did was wrong to do it. All I did was change the heading level so there wouldn't be an orphan heading that the bot wouldn't archive. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Someone else has asked the editor who redacted by post where the personal attack was. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor's userspace

I hereby grant you carte blanche to correct anything in my userspace. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Steven J. Anderson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --ragesoss 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template

Hi! I honestly have no idea how the standardization and norms for templates work around here; I was just asked to mass-protect all the country data templates and redirects because of their high risk of vandalism. You might be better off asking WikiProject Flag Template. All the best, east.718 at 18:55, December 22, 2007

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

it's a protected article so i can't edit it. please see in the talk page my comment: here Eyalmc (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

also, he did not say what you just fixed: here is a very good source explaining it all in detail he was falsely accused, and misquoted. wikipedia should reflect that if it stands for the truth. Eyalmc (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Le Canard enchaîné

Perhaps the connection is too tenuous : "Canard" (french): hoax, myth <--> "Antisemitic canards". -The Gnome (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Warsaw Child

I notice that you tried to save File:Childwarsawghetto.jpg. I disagree with J Milburn that the image doesn't add anything to the articles. I find it informative in several different ways. I think it would be a shame to lose that image but I don't know anymore how to argue the case. Maybe if I list you some of my observations you could mold some of them into rationales acceptable to Wikipedia?

• Gives a snapshot of daily life in the Ghetto.
• Notice how skinny the girl's legs are, it's a wonder she's walking.
• Death was so common that the dying kid seemed to have little significance to passers by.
• That it shows a human side to a historical event doesn't mean that it's a POV.
• When I showed it to someone who lived in Occupied Europe she stared at it for a long time. She remembered the (knickerbockers?) the boy on the right is wearing, it brought her back in time. Slightsmile (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Rodney King

Please stop reverting to the incorrect information. Ethnicity refers to your ethnic background, as in i.e. German, Swedish, Finnish etc, while race refers to your actual race, as in white or black etc. One more revert and you will be violating WP:3RR (3 reverts allowed). Norum 23:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong about the definition of ethnicity and wrong about the three revert rule. Essentially, there's no difference between race and ethnicity, since, biologically, there's no such thing as race. The word "race" is an entirely colloquial term, a social construct. Since there's no field for "race" in the template, the only reasonable place to put the information is in the "ethnicity" field.

Similarly, you haven't the slightest idea what the three revert rule entails. It forbids more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. I have made exactly one revert in the past 24 hours and am nowhere near violating the rule. If you're going to warn editors about the rules, you should learn them first. Also, the version of the article that I'm reverting to has been stable for months. When you edit against a stable consensus, as you did here, and are reverted, as you were here, the collegial, collaborative, civil thing to do is to leave the article in its stable version and go to the talk page. I'll start the talk page thread for you now, but I expect you to leave the article in its consensus version until the discussion is completed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

So by your accounts, Arnold Schwarzenegger's ethnicity should be white. This is pathetic. His ethnicity is Austrian, not white. You must understand the difference between ethnicity and race. This is used just as an example to prove my point. Since there is no place for ethnicity, the space should be left blank. Norum 00:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

When I last checked "white" was a composition of all the colours of the colour spectrum, not a 'race' and certainly not a definition of "ethnicity". Skin coloration is determined primarily by the amount and type of melanin and has a geneticaly predetermined predisposition that has some relationship to race as well as environmental and dietary influences. I think maybe [Norum] is confused about the 3 strikes and your out provisions, this sadly does not seem to have a provision to silliness otherwise I think it may have already been applied. When I look on WP for definitions of "race", "ethnicity", and "human skin color" I see that quite thorough explainations are provided in WP articles. It is not like you have to look further than either WP or just reach for a dictionary. ORIGIN early 16th cent.(denoting a group with common features): via French from Italian razza, of unknown ultimate origin. USAGE In recent years, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts such as race relations or racial equality, it is now often replaced by other words that are less emotionally charged, such as people(s) or community. Ethnicity is a noun ( pl. -ties) and describes the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. It is also quite well described at WP Ethnicity as; "An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and a tradition of common ancestry (corresponding to a history of endogamy). Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness."
I suggest to [Norum] that he tries that out and indeed may find things are less problematic. BTY thank you for picking up on the (Disambiguate Highlands to Highland (geography) which is why I came here today. Felix505 (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and antisemitism

Could you explain exactly how banning kosher and halal meat is antisemitic? In the section you restored, it's clearly speaking about the legal aspects of ritual slaughter. Unless there are some good profile incidents of this happening as a result of antisemitism - and references be provided - this seems very out of place in the article. I'm not into edit/revert wars, but I'm going to revert again in a day or two if the matter isn't resolved, unless someone else wants to get involved and sway either one of us. Your input is appreciated. Thanks! KaySL (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

First (as should be obvious), the banning of kosher meat can make it very difficult for Jews to live and freely observe the requirements of their religion in places where it's banned. It is (sometimes or in part) a way of saying clearly to Jews "You're not welcome here." Further, bans on kosher slaughter have, from time to time, been accompanied by antisemitic propaganda characterizing the practice as animal abuse. Antisemitic and fascist groups like the British National Front consistently support these bans.

However, taking a closer look at Christianity and antisemitism in its current state, I don't think it deals very clearly with the issue. Specifically, it doesn't clearly relate the bans to Christianity, it's unreferenced, and it's vague on the facts, so I will self-revert. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I understood it to mean the kosher/halal impact would be incidental; i.e. it wouldn't be a ban on those as such, but they would be impacted on a purely coincidental level, so not anti-semitism as it's widely defined. But at some point in the future when the facist/BNF elements can be expanded upon and referenced, I wouldn't have any issue with it being mentioned. Sorry if I sounded hostile at all, by the way, it certainly wasn't my intent! KaySL (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a close examination of the genesis and history of such bans would reveal that they're pretty much a mixed bag. Sometimes they arise from a genuine concern for animal welfare combined with relatively innocent ignorance about the details and requirements of kosher slaughter. Sometimes (as in Nazi Germany) they result from frank antisemitism covered with a very thin veneer of concern for animals. In that case at least, the effect on kosher/halal slaughter was not incidental at all. I can assure you that I detected no hostility in either your edits or your comments. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

unhelpful "help"

not sure what you were trying to accomplish in your add to the Messianic Judaism talk, but I don't need a lecture on sourcing. The movement doesn't have a centralized structure, and there are no hard numbers (in part since some congregations are "underground" after antimissionary persecution). We have had an ongoing discussion on the use of aggregated numbers versus out-of-date numbers. Your put was a personal jab and not appreciated.--DeknMike (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You are way out of line with this, fella. I made a perfectly appropriate and on-topic post on that talk page. If you think you're going to intimidate me off that talk page with a remark like this, you're in for some news. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The intent was to talk to you directly, since you jumped into the middle of a discussion. Not intimidation, but a gesture of "take it off line" --DeknMike (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Senat Redirect

Sorry, but redirecting to a single Senate in a random country is not 'a better redirect'. --Tarage (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is. So far as I know, Poland is the only country that spells the name of its senate that way, and "Senat" is not really a likely search term for any of the other links on the previous dab page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the Polish language Wikipedia, this is the English language Wikipedia. Redirecting to that specific of a Senate, rather than 'Senate' itself, is wrong. Either way, I posted a source that uses Senat. Hell, the Senet article itself has the alternative spelling in the first sentence. --Tarage (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is on the talk page of the redirect in question. I'll copy/paste this there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

help with board games issues

This work is compiled primarily from R C Bell, H J R Murray as well as a huge number of other books and articles over the last 20 years. Many items will be within Wikipedia already. When doing this work for myself I did not maintain rigor as to cross-references. How should I move this series of articles forward ? I am particularly unclear on how to link these new articles into the proper descending sequence ie games, game-authors etc.

J King

see below

Draft Articles or expansion of existing articles or possible Stubs for

Robert Charles Bell

Board Games

Categories of Board Game

(Puzzles)

(Recreational Mathematics)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NEW article

Robert Charles Bell

Author of several books on board-games. Most importantly, Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations.

R C Bell was born 1917 in Sudbury, Ontario and came to England in 1928. Educated at Haileybury College, Hertfordshire and St Bartholomew's Hospital by 1941. He became a consultant plastic surgeon. His first work was Board and Table Games of Many Civilizations. He later produced many articles on coin collecting for World Coins. In addition he produced Discovering Backgammon, Discovering Mah-Jongg, Discovering Chess and Discovering Old Board Games for Shire Publications. He was on the editorial board of the British Journal of Plastic Surgery. He died after 1980. [details taken from back cover of Shire Publications Discovering Backgammon]

Publications

• Bell, Robert Charles. The Boardgame Book. London: Bookthrift Company, 1979.
• Bell, Robert Charles. Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications,
  

1980. ISBN 0-486-23855-5

• • Reprint: New York: Exeter Books, 1983.
    

Discovering Mah-Jongg - Shire Publications.
Discovering Chess - Shire Publications
Discovering Old Board Games - Shire Publications #182 ISBN 0 85263 235 5
Discovering Backgammon - Shire Publications #201 ISBN 0 85263 263 0

Bell's main categories of board & table game

Bell gives origins, history and some game-playing details for some 180 games. He divides the majority into three categories 'Race, Place or Chase/War or combinations of the three. A Race game requires the pieces to move from a start point to a finish point usually based on the throw of dice. A Place game requires the winning player to form a pattern or shape by placing pieces on a board. A War game involves both placement and movement with the additional factor that pieces can be captured. Each of these terms can have a more specific game-related meaning.

Three examples :- Ludo is a simple Race game with a Capture ie Chase element'. Both Tic-Tac-Toe and Go are games of strict placement with no secondary moves. The majority of computer-based strategy games are definitely of the Chase or War category. Both Robert Charles Bell and Harold James Ruthven Murray use these major categories. Bell separates

Mancala games from the Race category and also has Dice and Domino categories. In addition, there is the large sub-genre of Solitaire and Puzzle games.

Much of Bell's work is based on his own research and the books of HJR Murray, Scarne, Dudeny and others.

QUESTION If I am allowed to create this article how do I ensure that the many references to RCBell are linked?

Stop vandalizing

I will revert anything you revert that are not following the guidelines.

"Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors."

A substantial reason has not been given not has a consensus been reach. You are violating the rules. (98.82.139.238 (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

Oops?

Hey, Mr Anderson. I assuming this was an oops? Basket of Puppies 04:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And I was about to put a warning here for him removing my comment, until I saw this. :-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it resulted from an edit conflict. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I hate it when that happens. Apologies to both of you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I've also done that. I wish they would work out the ECs one of these days. Cheers! Basket of Puppies 16:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

James Randi

Please revert to my prior version--Cridland's article is factually accurate and is supported by contemporary news articles which Randi's own book, The Magic of Uri Geller, reprints. Also see (online) the December 21, 1986 issue of The Orlando Sentinel, which has a bio of Randi ("The Quack-Catcher Beware" by John McAleenan) that includes his "Prince Ibis" role. More references can be added to support the changes I made, if you don't like Cridland. Lippard (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For your insight/clarification on Judaism and violence and the Bibile. God bless!Marias87 (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification at MJ

Certainly not. If I did it was in error and I apologize. Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations (2nd nomination)

Would you please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations (2nd nomination)? Thanks. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 September 2010

Please reinsert a source that you removed.

When you removed a source in this edit you commented, "Andrew Breitbarts website is not a reliable source."

The article at that website was published by Associated Press, which is a very reliable source.

The same article can be found here at USA Today.

Please put the Associated Press citation back into the article. Thank you.

108.3.64.140 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That information has apparently already been cited to another source. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the other source does not cite that information. The previous version, which cited Associated Press, specifically stated, "Killefer also withdrew on February 3 after it was revealed that she had failed to pay the unemployment compensation tax for a household employee for a period of 18 months." The current version, which cites CNN, only vaguely states, "Killefer also withdrew on February 3, citing unspecified problems with District of Columbia unemployment tax." Replacing a specific statement with a vague statement makes the article worse. Please reinstate the Associated Press citation (you can use the USA Today link since you don't trust the Breitbart link) along with the specific text from the earlier version of the article. Thank you. 72.77.60.126 (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Fitzgerald

I did not intend the information you deleted on the SS Edmund Fitzgerald as advertisement. I am not a member of the theatre company or the author. I saw the play this weekend and liked how they respectfully made this historical & tragic event personal in this play. I cite everything as a reference librarian so I inserted several links. Please reconsider its deletion or making a one line note to show this play as an example of history being woven into popular culture. --Stridster (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have expressed myself so ungenerously. Unfortunately, there's no way to alter an edit summary once made. (All the more reason for me to have been more temperate in my remarks.) I still the think the play has not gained enough notice to be mentioned in the article, however. Wikipedia should really follow, not lead, the coverage of new events. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Stridster, thanks for your contribution. Our concern is that we have to limit these somehow.....otherwise there are too many, and most with not enough notability and thus undue weight and borderline regarding being germane. We should noodle on your "one line" idea. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my edit on Talk:Henry Makow. I had a misunderstanding of the issue. Borock (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Jew Watch

Hello, Steven J. Anderson. You have new messages at Talk: Jew Watch.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hal-fead (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 November 2010

Please reinsert link that you removed from Law of identity

You know apparently nothing about the subject, and you are only making biased religious judgements based on your faith. Please stop your vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofman stern (talk • contribs) 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Religious text primary

A TFD has been opened on Template:Religious text primary. The TfD was opened on 2 December; so is due to close in two days time. Notification being sent to all participants in the previous discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_30#Template:BibleAsFact. Jheald (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:James Randi

Regarding the personal insults you expressed at Talk:James Randi, please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. If you continue this behavior, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is your second warning for violating WP:Civility, given your statements to User:Kazuba here and here. Please read WP:Civility carefully and adhere to it. If you continue to level personal insults at other editors who disagree with you, you risk being blocked from editing. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

James Randi talk page

I know it's easy to get annoyed by users who don't seem to care about or understand policies here, but it's really not worth risking a block. There are (around, don't know how accurate that tool is) 255 editors watching the article, and I doubt many of them would agree with Kazuba, so certainly someone else will take over when you feel you can no longer assume good faith. Cheers, Six words (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Book Of Exodus

You and another user noted that my contribution was fringe material. Where would this material go within Wikipedia? Does Wiki not allow for non-mainstream, alternative viewpoints within the Exodus section? I'm not saying I agree, but I don't see why deleting an afro-centric source is ok. --User:Hillis3000 —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

You may have missed

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_places_named_after_Richard_Nixon&action=history - there seems to be no open evidence of the proof of poor david (as I tend think of york71) - is it obvious he is trying every trick to get back on - stay on - that sock investigation stuff is no longer in public domain? (ie visible to david and others?) SatuSuro 02:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I missed a few, but I reverted everything I could easily without touching good edits by others. The page you linked to has been prodded for deletion. The record of the sockpuppet investigation is here. Does that answer your question? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No - sorry there is no sign of anything to do with it (the current sock) on this page - unless I am missing something SatuSuro 08:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That one was discussed here --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK - I think I understand - but it must be in the ether zone as in there ther eis nothing - I suppose they expect david to see what they are up to - and need to do some behind the scene stuff i suppose SatuSuro 08:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

sockpuppets

Given your intervention at Australia – New Zealand relations, the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71 might be of interest to you. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

BC, AD

<copyright violation redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobertjoo (talk • contribs) 18:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not really interested in your dissertation on the subject; I just want you to stop your disruptive editing. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Note - The opening post of this thread was copied and pasted from a Conservapedia article without attribution so I have redacted it as a copyright violation. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum

I didn't add the content that you removed, and I'm not going to revert you, but I really don't understand this edit. I don't see how the material violates either of the policies that you cited. — goethean ॐ 21:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly good question. First, the paragraph said that "(t)he museum has been associated with illegal dives" with this as a source. I don't think that source verifies that sentence. It says that the Ontario Ministry of Culture is reviewing certain allegations, but those allegations seem rather thin and no conclusions are drawn about the validity of the allegations. This is what I meant by misuse of sources.

Second, the paragraph said that the Michigan DNR "raided" the museum and "found illegally acquired artifacts" from two sunken vessels. It also says that "(t)he DNR's report stated that the museum 'has a long history of taking anything they wanted [sic] from the wrecks.'" This is the source used to substantiate these sentences. There are several problems here. To begin with, whitefishpointwatch.com does not appear to fit Wikipedia's qualifications as a reliable source. Next, the link itself is to a scan of a search warrant that was executed in 1992 and part of a report of an incomplete investigation. Using the word "raided" to refer to the service of a search warrant has some rather obvious POV implications. Also, I cannot verify from the linked documents that any "illegally acquired" artifacts were found at the museum; as far as I can tell, no such conclusion is reached in the report. In addition to all this, the search warrant and investigation reports themselves are primary sources. Such sources should be used with extreme care in order to avoid the kind of interpretation that should be made by secondary sources. Lastly, in the absence of these events being covered in some kind of secondary source, like a newspaper or professionally edited and fact-checked website, the significance of them cannot be established and it's probable that undue weight is being given to them.

I will also note that the entire paragraph was added by an editor who has but a single edit to Wikipedia (this one) the sole purpose of which seems to be disparage the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum. This is what led me to reference WP:BATTLE.

It may be possible to write something about these events that complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but there was so much that was wrong with the paragraph as it stood, I thought it best to delete all of it.

I hope this answers your questions and allays your concerns. Should you wish to discuss the matter further, please don't hesitate to continue this conversation --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi.

I can respect you for bringing to the administrators' attention my drunken idiocy. I may have done the same, in a similar position. Much of what you said is accurate. I was ranting, I did not directly reference policy, and I shot my mouth off like an idiot with access to Jimbo's account. However, I would like to confront you directly about a few things I found disturbing in your complaint:

Firstly, you forgot about the basic rule of the AN/I:

Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.

It's in bold, and it's centered at the top of the page. You didn't do that, though; you just went straight for the notification that I'm being talked about behind my back, instead. That's like calling a tow truck instead of asking a man to move his car from property that isn't yours. In Colorado, and I'm pretty sure this applies nationwide, as I've lived and heard it in 9 states, they call that a "dick maneuver". Here we call it a breach of Wikiquette. I like the colloquialism better, personally, but to each his/her own. All I know is that if you had pulled a stunt like that in person to anyone I know, you would be out cold in seconds. I'm much more forgiving in an electrical medium, despite the bite my words, however innocuously intended, tend to have. I suggest you talk to the user before narcing on them next time. Maybe they're like me and willing to apologize and rectify their mistakes.

The 'sit and spin' comment was taken completely out of context. Yes, it was inebriated foolishness, however, I can't help but ask you to actually read, rather than attempt to read between the lines, in the future. If you had looked closely at the next sentence, you might have seen it negated the emotionally-loaded statement:

A project like that, however, fits the scope of a dissertation, not an encyclopedic article with a contributor only looking to remove bias without biting anyone or assuming bad faith.

I'll try to remember to use more semicolons the next time I drunk-edit to keep myself from suicide attempts, so the entire thought process is preserved in a single sentence. :-)

On the other hand, criticizing me for my signature is neither your place nor your business. My signature is neither offensive nor immoral. A little long, maybe, but I did not pull it from that website, nor had I seen that site before yesterday. I believe, and I may be wrong, that that was a loaded attempt on your part to further your cause by using a website that made my signature out to be something rude, an intellectual joke against the lesser brains. If you look at some of the content of that website:

Now don’t you feel stupid?! Well, you won’t once you make all your friends look stupider by passing it out to them!

I've noticed your barnstars for topics relating to Judaism. Good work, I think. I haven't reviewed it, but obviously somebody thought it was worth a gold star next to your name. I wouldn't put it past an editor to stretch his/her imagination too far and assume that my indiscreet effort to remove the biased phrase "almost always Jews" is actually an antisemitic sentiment. I can foresee this fanciful behavior happening especially in situations where that critical editor has been chastised for incivility multiple times in the past, and is assuming I'm intentionally being uncivil toward one of their favorite topics. For the future I would like to suggest you try using User:xxxx instead of Talk:xxxx for the title of your AN/I. Using the talk page as a title is somewhat misleading, making it appear at first glance that there is something wrong with the topic of discussion, and not the rambling idiot abusing his keyboard.

Let me be clearer, now that I am able to make a concise statement: I am incapable of supporting the notion, even sober, that anything happens "almost always" to anyone, because an intelligent being with any type of experience with face-to-face human interaction with people of multiple income brackets and ethnic, religious, and ethno-religious backgrounds can plainly see that it doesn't. I am just in awe of the fact that Wikipedia never truly confirms, denies, nor attempts to correct a systemic bias, when it's sitting right in front of us.

Thanks for keeping me in check, though. We all need it from time to time, and it almost preserved my waning faith in Wikipedia's ability to monitor itself. But not quite. Nobody's perfect! O sibili, si ergo! fortibus es inero. O nobili! demis trux! Si vats inem: caus en dux. (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Musical Tributes: SS Edmund Fitzgerald

Please check out this section on my talk page. I think the unsigned entry was meant for you.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

See my note on main article talk page regarding this North8000 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Blood Libel

Hi, I've responded to your second revert to the word "often" in the "Blood Libel" article. I've suggested re-including the word "often" with a citation to the Anti-Defamation League's comment, "the term 'blood-libel' has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused." (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/5962_00.htm) If you have an alternate suggested compromise, please let me know. I was not "commanding" you not to revert my edit, I was hoping that you'd peruse the talk page to see my justification before simply reverting again. Agnosticaphid (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

ARBCOM about recent AN/I

There is an ARBCOM request which is related to an AN/I thread you recently participated. You may be interested in the discussion. --Cyclopia^talk 10:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ovilus

Thank you for the copyediting on Ovilus. I agree with all of your edits. Well done «Golgofrinchian» ∞talk∞ 02:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted at WP:FTN on the topic, but the article talk page is probably the best place to continue. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't do that again

Although it might hurt your feelings, there are actually race riots and even black and white crime. So until you check all of the sources, please do not assume otherwise and disrupt an article. Although it was probably unintentional, you actually editing in a manner that as contrary to our standards on verification. Bring it up on the talk page if you want to nit pick a line since I would be happy to show you the exact line in a source. And if I did miss something: Then it is even better since I might have missed something. And hate to use OR, but if you were not there you really have no business assuming it was not race related. And if you did not read the paper the next day with a the picture that was the one it was on the front page then you have no reason to assume it did not happen. Good thing sources back it all up.Cptnono (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That article is a wreck. I checked a few of the sources and they just, simply, flat-out do not say what the article claims they do. If you think I'm "editing in a manner that as (sic) contrary to our standards on verification," you need to learn those standards. You can't go to a source, read it, draw what you think are reasonable conclusions from it, and then put your conclusions in an article. That is the essence of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. However, as I was working on the article and found that a great many statements were not verified by the source cited, I began to find some of them verified by other sources cited at other points in the article. At that point I concluded that this was more of a mess than I wanted to deal with before getting some sleep so I just stopped. I did not "assum(e) that it was not race related." I also did not "assume it did not happen" Nothing in my editing indicates that I made either assumption. I simply noted that the claims made in the article weren't supported by the citations. If I decide I want to do any more work on that article, I'll start by pointing out the many discrepancies on the talk page. If you think that sources back it all up, you'd better find some and cite them. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)