User talk:Ohiostandard/Archive 1

I saw your posting at ANI, where you expressed caution about possible OUTING. Since the creator of this article is making no effort to keep his identity private here, I suggest that you go ahead and offer this matter for review, especially at WP:COIN. (User:Aldinuc admits here that he is the designer of Fastflow). My own opinion is that the article needs reliable sources to show that other people have taken notice of the technology. If no such evidence can be found, an WP:AFD may eventually be needed. The fact that the creator is editing the article on his own software may not be a fatal objection if he will cooperate in finding the needed sources. I also don't like his creating links to Fastflow in other articles, which he has done on a large scale starting May 17. Nobody has posted anything other than templated messages at User talk:Aldinuc in the last several months. The possibilities for discussion are far from exhausted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

( Please note: The posting at ANI referred to above is now here. Ohiostandard (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC) ) Reply

Thanks very much for your comment, EdJohnston. I see I was too hasty to mark the ANI discussion as "resolved" in just 50 minutes, after only one editor had replied. Sorry I didn't give you and other administrators a more reasonable time to comment. Thanks, too, for the link to Aldinuc's disclosure that he was a designer of what we're all calling "Fastflow", for now. I'd missed that. I certainly agree with you that this merits additonal discussion, and do intend to follow up on the matter. I've been a little slow to do that, but I promise I'll get to it soon. Best, Ohiostandard (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Reported our friend(s) here. Each was blocked for two weeks, again.

"I went to the police, like a good American. These two boys were brought to trial. The judge sentenced them to three years in prison -- suspended sentence. Suspended sentence! They went free that very day! I stood in the courtroom like a fool. And those two bastard, they smiled at me. Then I said to my wife, "for justice, we must go to Don Corleone.""

Maybe next time. --CliffC (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes; I'll never understand why WP is so soft on vandalism. How many times would a person be allowed to go into a library and vandalize the books before he was banned? Yet users here get ten, twenty, thirty chances to reform. I could understand it if these IP addresses were dynamic, but they're obviously static, have obviously been assigned to the same person for something like three years. Another user suggested some time ago that we consider contacting a public liason officer or some such in the vicinity ... I know it would require great care to do that correctly ( eg under wp:abuse ), but I'm beginning to think that might be the only way to end this clown's very long vandalism spree. Thanks for the quotation, though; it makes me feel better. :-) And thanks very much for making the report, too. I suppose we'll be back in touch on this in two weeks. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I suggest filing a WP:SPI. You could resubmit all your data there. There is a chance of a longer block (up to six months, I think) if you could include enough diffs to show that the IPs are static and that abuse has been continuing for a long time. You can't expect any deep analysis when you submit at AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, EdJohnston, and thanks for looking in from time to time, as well; I appreciate it. Each reporting page has its own "character", I find, but I hadn't been aware of this difference; it's good to know of it. Can we still file an SPI at this point? At least three admins were aware of the IP using one of his addresses to evade a block ( see ANI report here and admin talk page here). I was probably at blame for being too verbose in that first one; I tried to do too much with the ANI report, and that made it harder to follow than was strictly necessary. But I'm concerned that since it's already been through ANI once recently, that people might get annoyed with a new report, at SPI. Also, although this person did use his IP to evade a block (and was sanctioned for that at ANI), I don't think he's really trying to conceal the connection between 138.162.8.57 and 138.162.8.58 in his most recent offenses. Comments? Thanks again,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nobody will complain about an SPI filing; it helps keep the records straight. In your submission you could note that you are asking for a longer block than the ones previously given, based on the more complete story you are providing. You can notify the previous blocking admin if you wish. It seems that you possess more background knowledge of the issue than you gave at ANI, and the SPI report would allow room to present that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you recently voted against renaming the Communist terrorism article. Could you please provide a source that defines/explains what communist terrorism is. TFD (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, TFD. Thanks for asking; it's a compelling question from my perspective, and I'll be very pleased to discuss it with you: I've been impressed with your contributions that I've seen across multiple articles, and would be pleased to hear more of what you think on the topic, as well. I'm afraid I have to be offline for several hours, however, but I did want to just give this quick reply, for now, to acknowledge your query. More to follow as soon as possible. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, I can't provide a source for a definition, or explain what the phrase might mean. "Communist terrorism" as an article title is far too broad, imo, but "Leftist terrorism" seems even worse to me. Both seem to me to be made-up phrases, and too broad/vague to be of any real use. We might just as well have articles named "Rightist torture" or "Leftist assassination". I'd support the deletion of any article so broadly named that came up at AfD. Just to mention a single and relatively minor objection among many, when I think of "communism" what comes to mind first for me are examples that predate Marx and Engels by centuries. The rules pertaining to the establishment of "compagnie" (various spellings) during the Middle Ages come to mind, as does the practice of the early Christian church as reported in the Acts of the Apostles, 2:44 and following verses, “All who believed were together, and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.” An even more homely example: Most married couples in the West practice communism in the sense of "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs," and usually in their common ownership of assets, as well.

But if an editor wants to make the case that any prominent figure in the 19th-century political and economic theory that appropriated the word "communism" was a supporter of terrorism then let him do so at the biographical article for that figure. Or if people want to write about the horrors perpetrated by individual national dictators who claimed to be inspired by Marx's and Engels' ideas then let them do so in articles specifically devoted to those particular dictators; such additions would be specific enough to improve the encyclopedia. I'm not really familiar enough with the lives and writings of Marx and Engels to render any definitive opinion about whether they might have supported terrorism, although I'm very inclined to doubt that based on the little I've read. But I do know that merely claiming inspiration from a particular authority doesn't make it so, and that self-professed followers of a cause don't always exemplify its founder's beliefs. If everyone who claimed to adhere to a particular creed did in fact accurately exemplify its founder's principles, we'd be logically compelled to rename our article on, say, The Inquisition, to something like "Christian terrorism", a title that would, of course, just be ridiculous.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I did not watch your page and missed your comments. Many thanks for replying. Writers on terrorism use typologies for different types of terrorism, including left-wing terrorism. Christian terrorism is seen as a subtype of religious terrorism. I do not know why they would use the term left-wing rather than communist but my guess is that most of these groups were not connected with Communist Parties and their ideologies might be difficult to categorize. Some of them are not very clear thinkers anyway. The term "Communist terrorism" however is not used in any consistent way. Mostly it was used by Western governments to describe insurgencies during the 1950s and 1960s, particularly for the Malayan Emergency. Otherwise the term is used sporadically.

The article was created by User:Mamalujo, who cut and pasted sections on various groups and wrote an unsourced lead.[1] Over the years no one has been able to produce a reliable source that provides a definition.

TFD (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No worries, thanks for your reply. Half the problem I have is with the word "terrorism". It's no longer a useful word, imo: it has come to be used so broadly that that in most people's minds now I think a "terrorist" means "anyone who fights against my side and who doesn't wear a uniform." Roughly the same usage reliable sources give to the word, "insurgent", I think.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your feedback concerning the Christine O'Donnell article, but I'm a bit confused about your definition of overlinking. As far as I am aware, notable people such as George H.W. Bush and concepts important to the article (such as O'Donnell's Irish heritage and evangelical faith) need to be linked. Therefore, I linked them. Am I missing something? Treybien (talk) 12:27 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on this page. Would you mind posting your reply there, also? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ohio. Thanks for helping to resolve the issues at the Pamela Geller article. I think we only need to work out one more thing, which is if and how to mention the Second Temple. I raised a couple questions in the discussion; would you mind responding over there? Also, I know you have some concerns about the links; I haven't addressed them yet because I expect the questionable link won't be needed in the version that we are moving toward. If that link is an issue, I'll certainly address your concerns. Thanks. guanxi (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ohio - I want to take your concerns into account and I appreciate your heroic attempt to compromise with Epeefleche, but I'm not seeing where you are headed. If you succeed in compromise with E., it will be only you and Epeefleche who agree, with almost all others wanting to remove the quote and go with option C (I prefer A, but I get to compromise too). Then what? It seems like we'd still be at the same consensus for C, though it would be a little weaker.

Perhaps being later to the discussion, you're not aware of the history: Epeefleche reverted several times and tendentiously edited the quote into the article in the middle of the discussion; only Epeefleche claims that WP:SYN applies, and many others, including an Admin's outside opinion, think E. is being uncooperative and disingenuous. I tried several times to compromise with E. already, and he/she ignored my attempts. guanxi (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I understand your concerns, but I prefer to keep the discussion on the article talk page. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; I was actually in the process of looking at the diffs and talk page and refs for Heim Theory when the "new message" bar showed up for this notification. Not quite sure yet, more info to review, but will probably comment at ANI. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. Dougweller has opened a new thread on WP:ANI about this [2] following the return of Terra Novus after his one week block. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

How very kind, Nuujinn! Thanks for thinking of me! I'm afraid real-life responsibilities have kept me away for some time, but I look forward to things calming down that way in the next couple of months, and hope to have the pleasure of working with you again in the coming year. My very best wishes to you for 2011. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I removed the reference you complained about. May I please ask you to remove that part of your comment from DR? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good on you; thank you. I didn't feel I could just delete or strikeout my objection, though, since it's so entwined in the thread at AfD, but you'll have seen by now that I went back and prefaced my objection there with an after-the-fact annotation to explain that you've since removed that reference from your Blame Israel first article that's now under review.

Thanks, too, for striking your suggestion that I might have objected to one of the refs you included in your previous Wagner article out of a racist motive. Things do tend to spiral out of control in the competitive debate that characterizes the interactions over I/P articles here; it's just too easy by half to let oneself get drawn into that spirit of competition and to let it overrule higher and more cooperative motives. I certainly find that in myself, of course, and see it throughout the whole sorry arena, as well.

You know, I really did want the thesis of your Richard Wagner's first love article to be true, and was quite disappointed to learn that it wasn't. It was a delightfully appealing article, even if most of it was written by other people ( And I've since learned there's no requirement here to attribute text after its copyright has expired. ) It would have tidily explained the composer's racism, for one thing, and it's a great story besides. And I really did spend "hours", btw, probably at least six hours over a couple of days, actually, reviewing the sources that speak to it. I didn't say so at the time, but IIRC, my preliminary guess based on that research was that the whole story probably originated in the unnamed edition of Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, presumably from some anecdote someone once heard. On reflection about this, it occurs to me that I just might have spent longer in that research than it took you to create the article in the first place, given its cut-and-paste origins.

And now that I say so, I guess that concisely illustrates why I spoke so critically at the current AfD for your Blame Israel first article. I tend to swell up in righteous indignation over what I consider poor sources when I have the least reason to suspect that their inclusion may have been influenced by a contributor's enthusiasm for his thesis, by his POV, in other words. This probably carries over from my love for the foundations of mathematics (logic, set theory, theory of numbers, etc.) where exactitude and rigor are absolutely crucial if one is to have any chance at all of making a contribution that doesn't just muddy the waters. I admit that the response isn't especially helpful here, though, and I'll try to check it in the future.

In that same spirit of reconciliation, I'll also say that if the other refs you used in your Wagner article had been cricket, I probably wouldn't have taken such exception to the cite you gave to the story in The American Hebrew, even though it was so far from being what we normally think of as a reliable source in itself. It wouldn't have raised such a storm as a supplemental ref, in other words, if the primary thesis of the article itself hadn't been ... well, to be polite, I'll say "apocryphal, at best." I'll also reiterate that I know you weren't aware of that; I understand and accept your statement that you didn't know that Praeger had fabricated so much of his book, and that you didn't recall the discussion we all had about it previously.

So, better, at all? If this isn't good enough to let us kiss and make up, then would you object to maybe just rubbing noses? Now if you'd only give Unomi back his cookies and stop calling him a troll we could all be pals again, and go get coffee and knishes together. I think I might even offer to treat, and that's saying a lot, because I'm really quite a cheapskate. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please stop making unwarranted comments with a pointed edit summaries as you did here D: D8 D; D= DX.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm genuinely sorry that you felt offended. In all sober earnest, I don't like being so critical and I don't like naming any comment as racist. But you're telling me that an ad hominem written about a Jewish commentator using exactly the format you used about the Palestinian one I linked to wouldn't have seemed so to you? Oh, about your suggestion that I may have violated a copyright, did you perhaps miss the link I provided to the article from which I copied the quote? It's the superscript "1", that immediately follows it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am more than offended by your unwarranted accusation. Here's the comment I wrote a year or so ago. Do I sound like the one, who would make a racist comment? I do have reservations about the author of the quote you provided, but it has absolutely nothing to do with racism whatsoever! If that or a similar quote were taken from an Israeli Jew my reaction would have been the same. I would appreciate, if you retract your unwarranted accusation. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've considered this very carefully, and I'm sorry to have to tell you that I can't retract my characterization of your comment. I hope you'll be able to hear me, as to why I can't. What I can do, though, is repeat that I'm genuinely sorry I've offended you, and also say that I wish I could have thought of a less disturbing word than "racist" to appropriately describe your reply to the quotation I posted. I'll go further still, and tell you that I honor you for your comment to a user with a hateful image on his user page, the comment you cite just above about being willing to give your own life to save any child's, without regard to ethnic origin: I believe you about that, and I'm really trying to understand, here. Do you get that? Do you understand that I'd be very glad to be able to understand this from your perspective, and to know how it feels to you?

But here's the problem I have: I don't see you as operating out of anything like that same olive-branch orientation in your actual contributions to Wikipedia; very much to the contrary, I regret to say. More specifically, if I understand your assertions at the AfD for Blame Israel first, then in reply to a user citing a reliable-source editorial quotation, you would be just fine with a response that went like this:

The above quote is by an Orthodox Jew from Israel (the government of which rains incendiary phosphorus on Gaza), J. Doe Leibowitz. He now lives in America, a country with a constantly increasing number of anti-Muslim incidents. --Example (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the same format you employed, in your own comment. Can you tell me in all good conscience that you'd not view this strictly-analogous hypothetical as a near-perfect example of racially-motivated prejudice? You were ready to call me anti-Semitic for objecting to the cite you made to the pleasant-but-non-RS 1896 magazine we discussed earlier; would you really hesitate to do so if someone posted the above comment? Wouldn't you and your friends condemn this response to a quotation by a Jew as being a virulently anti-Semitic attack on the author's credibility?

I can't imagine you could see the above, offered in the same context as your own comment, as anything but anti-Semitic, and I'd support you entirely in that view. This is why I can't retract the admittedly ugly word I felt I had no alternative but to use in characterizing your post. If there's something I'm missing in this, I'd be glad to be told of it... Btw, I really hope you'll engage in a serious dialogue with me about this. I know it's difficult, and that the conditions between us at present are far from conducive, but I really do want to understand your perspective, both on this particular point, and more generally, too, if I possibly can.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess my English is hard to understand. Let's try yet another time. Here's a quote from wikipedia article: Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

I am telling you that I cannot care less what race, ethnicity, or nationality that man is. I would have made the same comment, if he were a Jew. Period. It was my last comment here. I really do not care to talk to the user, who called my comment "racist". --Mbz1 (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I can understand your reluctance; that would probably make me mad, too. Suppose I suspend my disbelief for a while and we set aside the ugly word for the sake of this immediate discussion, in courtesy to someone who, among other admirable traits such as tenacity and loyalty, takes such magnificent pictures, as I believe I observed before. ( C'mon, give me a break: That last would only be a gratuitous compliment if I had said just, "great pictures". And they are, without reserve or equivocation, magnificent. ) Let's see if we can both back up enough to sort this.

Under that regimen, then, it occurs to me that even if a person does think he has cause to view another's remark in very negative terms, it's poor policy to use a "hot-button" word to describe it so, as I did. The word I used can certainly be classed as a hot-button, I think, just like the term "anti-Semitic" with which you so nearly favored me. Both are so brutally potent as to almost constitute de facto discrediting, "poisoning the well" all by themselves, regardless of whether they have any shred of truth to them or not. So, what I'm saying is that I did respond to your post mentioning rockets and the rise of anti-Semitic hate crimes in Sweden with righteous indignation, which really isn't a very appropriate motivation when one sinner addresses another.

Besides, I do understand that your response was complicated by the fact of your having missed the cite/ref link I provided. I can see how it might have appeared, without awareness of that link, and in the competitive atmosphere that's been prevailing, that I was trying to slip some variety of Palestinian propaganda past your radar. I wasn't, of course, as I know you understood once you became aware of the link, but I can see how it could have at first seemed as if I were. ( I presume you Googled the quote to find the source, before you saw the link? )

But it does occur to me that if I hadn't jumped on your comment with such alacrity, and with both of my great huge feet, and had instead said something much milder, that you might not have felt quite so compelled to defend your comment. If I'd instead said something like, "Say, are you sure that's exactly what you meant to say?" then it occurs to me that there might have been some remote possibility that you would have felt the freedom to respond, "Well, perhaps that wasn't the most sensitive thing I've ever said." ( Stay with me here, I'm having fun making up both sides of our missed-opportunity conversation. ;-) But, of course, I got self-righteous, you got defensive, and then everyone else got mad, too, and that was pretty much the end of reasonable discussion. So what do you think: Could the conversation have worked out the way I'd have liked it to, something like the way I've described, in some alternate or do-over universe? Or do you still feel it necessary to stick to your guns on this absolutely? Let me know tomorrow, if you like. You've had a lot of responding to do already today, at the AfD, and I imagine that could wear on a person. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Ignore that last part, the part about getting back to me tomorrow. It's not necessary to be so quick, unless you just want to. For one thing, I'll likely be off-line for a day or three anyway. But more to the immediate point − and I don't know why it's just now occurring to me − it's probably not reasonable or fair to expect someone who has fielded all the criticism you have over your article to have much motivation to understand anyone else's views. We all identify with our own work to at least some extent, of course, and tend to take criticism of our work as criticism of our selves, no matter how much we try to avoid that trap. So I imagine it must feel really annoying to have one's article AfD'd, and then to hear it criticized so freely, too. Get back to me when you feel like you want to. I'd appreciate that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I never did hear back from the Foundation, so I just re-blocked them for a year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bless you, sir, and all your house, unto the seventh generation! You are a most noble and shining example of all that's right and good and true here. :-) He had been prolificly vandalizing here for years, and his two IPs are static, anyway, so no collateral damage. Good on you, and my best thanks for following up so responsibly!  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, good block, although I always thought it was two guys sharing an office. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Cliff! I'd thought of posting to your talk to share my glee over this, as I know you've also been frustrated at the long string of short blocks these IPs have seen stretching back into the primordial mists. Maybe you're right about it being two guys who are tag-teaming; I'm used to having multiple computers in my office (or at least to run a session from) because of my work in software development, but that's unusual, I admit. Good to hear from you, and best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm actually in Australia, but have a fascination for that wondrous thing, the English language, and how many differnt ways it's used around the world.

In Australia, just like America, we have two major poltical parties that dominate state and federal politics. The more right wing and definitely more conservative of those two parties is the Liberal Party. It's the party which has historically forged our strongest links with the USA. (Should we tell those who hate liberals?) We also quite comfortably use the word liberal (without the capital L) to describe someone who is fair and generous. It hardly ever has a negative connotation. (Unless one is choosing to attack the political party, but that's like politics everywhere.)

I visited America a couple of years ago and was told by lots of people "I just love your (Australian) accent". Trouble was, the accent got in the way of communicating. I struggled even ordering a Coke! Did enjoy my stay though.

Now, about Wikipedia... I start a new job tomorrow. I have a feeling I'll be a low key player here for a while. Good luck keeping the peace. HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this, a very helpful aid to understanding, and I appreciate it. Glad to hear you didn't find our side of the globe unpleasant during your visit. And we only pretend not to understand Brits and Aussie's speech because all of us over here are either secretly or avowedly envious of the way you speak. Besides, every American male over the age of six is in love with Nat! ( aka Communitychannel on Youtube ). I wonder if she'll ever make me Lamingtons? Best of luck with the new job!  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

( Note: the comments below follow up a thread from the help desk that has been archived here. -- Ohiostandard )

Re, 'any takers' - some thoughts;

• It's be more complex that you'd imagine - to code, I mean. But don't let that put you off. I hope you will pursue this
• I think a tool that assists the process could work. Along the lines of, perhaps, User:Splarka/dabfinder.js -which just highlights all disambiguations and/or redirects on a page - or, like reflinks. Or something
• I guess from your comments, you do not code bots yourself; however, you could do some of the 'groundwork', if you wanted. You could a) have a really good look around for similar tools, similar ideas in the past, and b) think very carefully about exactly what any tool/assistant could do, y editing some pages and thinking, "how can a bot find these EL's, and how should it best show them / fix them".
• Finding el's - I find it easier to turn off WikEd for that type of editing. I just 'find' (CTRL-F, on firefox) "http:" usually.
• Please remember: external links in the body are not prohibited - in some cases, they can be allowed. It's up for discussion/consensus, like everything.
• If we just removed them, we could lose information - quite often, people use an EL when they intended a ref. And the URL they use might be to the root of the website, not the one that actually gives the info. In other words, quite often, this problem will require manual human care
• Maybe try Wikipedia:Bot requests - the folks there know more about this stuff.

I hope you will pursue this a little, because the idea of 'something' to help with fixing el's has certainly come up quite a few times, in the past.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  07:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this, for this suggestion and for sharing your thoughts/caveats, too. I'm wholly sensible of the points you make, and certainly agree that a conservative approach is called for. Like you, I feel very averse to the prospect of losing any helpful information in the process of addressing this vexing problem. And you're certainly correct, of course, that the right way to begin would be to look around very carefully to see what might have been done in this direction previously. Thanks for the tip about wikEd, too; you're right, and I wasn't aware of the ctrl-f toggle, so that was helpful as well. That's an amusing comic, too; thanks.

You're correct in your speculation that I've never coded a bot. I'm not sure I'd have time to learn, although I might, too. I do have enough background in high-level programming languages, and was, in my distant past, tolerably adept at writing simple (Unix) shell scripts. But so far I've avoided learning any full-blown scripting language well. The prospect of learning, say, Python, appeals to me, although I don't know how much time I could devote to such a project. I do feel pretty comfortable writing SQL stored procedures; doesn't MediaWiki use MySQL or some such? I see from my first look at our creating a bot page that one can code a bot via Ruby, as well, which sounds appealing, as I've thought pretty seriously in the past about making the time to learn that language. Do you have any suggestions as to the best programming environment to use to create a bot for WikiMedia? If I did undertake any such project, I'd want it to be open source, btw.

I agree entirely that such a tool, especially in its early versions, could only provide an assist; that each EL a tool identified would need human "eyes on" before it could be properly dealt with. It might (or might not) be that eventually a developer could gain enough sophistication that perhaps some kinds of ELs could be dealt with in a more automated way, but I agree, of course, that one would have to be painstakingly cautious to avoid the potential for serious disruption or loss of useful information. Finally, I do take your point, as well, that WP:EL doesn't prohibit all inline external links. The various "Bibleref" templates that I just noticed today are one ubiquitous exception, I see, and I understand that other, one-off, article-specific exceptions may have been approved by consensus, as well. Any further thoughts that occur to you about any of this would be welcome, as long as you understand that at this point I can't make any promises at all that I could undertake such a project. Thanks again,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, MediaWiki uses SQL for everything. Also, there is a near-live partial replica on Toolserver (mostly: everything *except* actual article content - ie pages, revisions, users, etc) which some people (including myself) can run queries on. See Wikipedia:SQL.

Lots of the bots run on toolserver, too.

Re. languages - my personal experience is limited; I've written a bot that writes to Wikipedia pages using c# and something called the "DotNetWiki" framework - which makes it all rather easy. But that isn't the norm; I think most use Perl or something, but I really know little about it. You're far better saying hello to The Earwig (talk · contribs) - I'm sure he'd advise - or, ask on Wikipedia talk:BAG.

However, I'm not trying to 'pass the buck' - if there is anything else you want to ask me, any time, please do.  Chzz  ►  20:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There's not the least whiff of passing the buck in this; on the contrary, I'm grateful for your suggestions. I'd really (!) like to have the time to undertake this, I just doubt whether it's feasible for me at present. I'll have to consider on it, and will take you up on your kind offer if I have any other questions that you might be able to address. Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Cool. And update, I spoke to Earwig today, and he's not editing much, for the immediate/indef future - so that avenue is out, really. BAG in general might help. But yes, "do it yourself" is best, of course :-) Best of luck with that but do ask for help, any time,  Chzz  ►  04:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Please read my last comment in this Rfc. Is wikipedia a dealing company ?!!! Now that I have discovered it, the author should have his own article. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 11:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I did read your final comment, but it leaves me none the wiser. I've had no prior involvement with this issue that I can recall. Did you perhaps post to this page by mistake?  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

No mistake, I was asking you to comment. No need to do so. I just quit the discussion. Thanks anyway. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 15:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry not to be clear as to who I was addressing. I don't remember. And in any case, the discussion is closed. There is nothing so old as a closed Wikipedia talk page.

As for logic, I recommend Logicomx, logic in comic book form. You can read more about it here: http://www.amazon.com/Logicomix-Search-Truth-Apostolos-Doxiadis/dp/1596914521/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298120295&sr=1-1 Rick Norwood (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Brevity is the soul of wit. A word to the wise is sufficient. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, Rick, if you only knew how very hard I strive to be brief, and how painful my general failure in that struggle is to me, I have no doubt that you'd take pity rather than umbrage at my poor non-witty, frequently unwise self! I didn't mean to offend you in posting a second request to your talk re wp:indentation, but in retrospect I do see that was unnecessary and a bit harping, Sorry for that. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I hope you didn't take offense, none was intended. And, no, my watch list is so long already I don't watchlist every page I post to. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, not the least offence taken. Besides, I wasn't joking about my struggle against prolixity. And in all seriousness, my second post on wp:indent to your talk was unnecessary, and you were right to tell me so... That said, you won't mind that I've indented your post from flush-left, just above, I hope? ;-) Cheers, and best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I wish I could work with you on removing the misleading conclusions, but an editor keeps complaining to admins that I edit the article out of spite or something. Anyways I hope you keep with it and take your points to WP:NPOVN where you will hopefully get a non-biased opinion and I also suggest a tag is added as the dubious claims being made in the lead are very serious. Passionless -Talk 23:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

As you know from the analysis of the sources cited that I presented on the article's talk page, I share your concerns. I haven't given up on it, though; I've been spending considerable time examining the sources further, actually. I'll probably edit it again, based on that. I appreciate your suggestion re the NPOVN, but I frankly don't see that board as a very useful resource. Maybe its traffic is too low, but posts seem to languish there for long periods with no uninvolved editors expressing an opinion. Nor do I see much good in tagging the article at this point. It certainly presents a very "selective" view of the facts, to put it gently, but just tagging it without putting in the considerable effort that would be needed to address the article's problems comprehensively would just stir up trouble, in my opinion, without any productive outcome likely to result.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Carl Truscott: I think if the disruption continues on Truscott you might have to request semi protection, its probably the same person , someone with a grudge, this is a clear WP:COI - this IP from User_talk:12.33.141.36 is from http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us and the other single issue account is prolly them at home Contributions/173.52.113.72 - Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Rob! Thanks for reverting that; I was in the process of composing a novel to the New Jersey IP on his talk page when you reverted, and had also intended to revert when I saw that you'd beat me to it. I've thought of semi-protection, too, of course, but haven't requested it for a couple of reasons. Probably the most important one is that I have reason to believe that someone closely associated with the subject has been editing as an IP and via various sequential socks for a long while.

As you know, we normally discourage people from that kind of COI editing, but I'd like to avoid shutting the article to IPs for his sake, in this case, since I think we'll need his active participation if we're ever to reach a stable version. I'll probably suggest to the IP I'm thinking of that he create a new account under which to disclose what I assume might be his COI at some point, since he's expressed an interest in having the article deleted, if possible, and it's my understanding that doing so would reinforce his case. But I need to take the time to carefully present his possible options to him for proceeding with that.

I don't think the article should be deleted, btw. But I do strongly support his right to seek that, and I think it's only fair that I should help him learn as much as he can re his possible options that way, since he does seem to be pretty inexperienced in navigating our somewhat intimidating labyrinth of rules here. If he asks, and wants to proceed that way, I'd probably even be willing to help him write the AfD proposal text, unless he wants to try contacting the Foundation, first.

Also, with so many IPs having been involved re this article for so long, I'd like to allow their involvement as "full" participants in the talk page discussion we need to restart over this; I'd prefer that no one feel like a second-class participant in that discussion, if possible. And while I know it's a nuisance to have to keep reverting "scrubbing" and "damning" edits, there seem to be enough "eyes on" now to make that happen pretty quickly. If you haven't, already, you might like to look at my mea culpa on the New Jersey IP's talk page. I hope you're well, and see you soon on the Truscott talk page. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Quick addition: It's of course possible that our New Jersey friend has some COI, and that occurred to me too, but I don't see that there's a necessary correlation between a former DOJ (Federal Government) official and someone who apparently works for the NJ judiciary. Or have I possibly forgotten some connection Truscott had to the State of New Jersey's court system?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Seems like an open and shut case to me, He began his law enforcement career in 1980 as an Investigator for the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety - report against him is from http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0610/final.pdf and the ip is from - http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/ Its clearly not a simple passer-by, but I have no problem at all with them joining in and discussing the issue, the more the merrier. I have found that often in a case like this where a BLP is attacked repeatedly that it is often a single person with a opinionated grudge against the subject for one reason or another. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; I'd forgotten that. Wow, though; from 20 - 30 years ago!? If you're right about the connection and motive then that might be one for the record books.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dracey_Freeman - thoughts? - Off2riorob (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I really wish I'd seen that myself, for several reasons. I know, of course, and that your query here is perfectly in order (and I am indeed grateful to be asked my opinion) but I have to respond that I probably shouldn't contribute to the thread. I came across what looks like a pretty egregious example of canvassing today that I'll probably have to report in the next day or two. I'd prefer not to complicate that by allowing anyone even the most ridiculous of grounds to suggest that I'd done anything even remotely similar myself. I hope you'll understand this has nothing to do with you, and that you won't take offence at all; there's not the least personal imputation intended, of course. I don't at all mind saying, though, that I think you'd do well to post an immediate request for help on this one at AN or AN/I. Cordially, and with best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Its not really an issue for AN/I, asking for an opinion is not what WP:Canvassing is about, but its been prodded and I have doubts it will last a full seven days, no worries, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't suggest AN or AN/I with the idea of penalizing anyone. I did so because that would be a way to quickly get the attention of someone who can delete the article immediately, instead of having to wait for a PROD to run its course. Given that the article could influence opinion re an ongoing trial, I'd even say it wouldn't be much of a stretch to e-mail oversight to get the immediate results that seem called for in this case.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Its been raised to a speedy WP:A7 now which is what I was thinking, lets see it an admin accepts that and get rid of it. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

to report an user you have problems with. An article's talk page is a wrong venue. Please stop discussing me there.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've talked with an admin about this, I'm soon going to take care of this situation at AE under WP:ARBPIA, alright Ohiostandard? Passionless -Talk 21:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Passionless. I have very limited experience in dealing with an editor who's this agressive. I see she's deleted the relevant talk page section a second time now, with the edit summary "wrong venue". She's almost insisting this has to be escalated: I can't understand why anyone would want to drag others into a round of drama over these insults, rather than simply saying, "Yeah, I got mad. Sorry," which I wouldn't consider a big deal.

But just deleting the talk-page section repeatedly implies to me that she plans to continue this kind of behavior. Anyway, I'm not going to restore the section a second time because I think this is getting pretty ridiculous and I don't want to fan the flames if I can help it. I'd much prefer to keep the drama to a minimum, but we really can't have editors - especially in so contentious an area - who feel free to characterize others as ... well, I'll reproduce the section she deleted (twice) below; it pretty much speaks for itself:

The above is, of course, from the talk page (permalink) for the Koby Mandell and Josef Ishran murder article. In addition to deleting this section two times, she's also twice removed the POV tag placed on the article by two different editors, and twice characterized an editor's good-faith actions as "vandalism", first in an edit summary and then again in an edit summary and corresponding talk page post. As I said, I'd like to avoid drama over this, but I haven't seen that WQA is effective for situations like this one, either, so whatever assistance you or any admin could provide would be welcome. Thanks very much,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I hope no one thinks this is canvassing as you are deeply, currently, involved, but I have now posted an AE about Mbz1. Passionless -Talk 00:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, of course it's not canvassing; I expected you'd let me know of any subsequent actions concerning this, and you're right to do so. I'd actually been considering opening an AN/I thread about Mbz1's misuse of sources. I'm not sure if I'll post that (or anything else) to the ArbCom thread you've now started, but I did notice that you'd commented there about Mbz1 having made a racist comment.

That's a very ugly word, but Roscelese isn't alone in having found it necessary to apply it to one of her comments. I suggest you look at this successful AfD for her "Blame Israel first" article. If you search that page for "17:45, 31 January 2011", and read the subsequent comments, you'll see that four editors (including myself) felt that her very harsh and ethnically-motivated attack on a reliable-source journalist merely because of his nationality merited that characterization.

She demanded that I retract the word, here on my talk page. I carefully considered the request, and then tried very gently to explain why I couldn't honor it. I'd really hoped she'd continue the discussion with me, and that we could come to some amicable resolution, but she refused to do that. You might find that AfD, and especially the subsequent discussion here ( livelink & permalink) to be relevant to your post at ArbCom. For example, despite her explicit protests to the contrary here, I remain wholly unconvinced that she'd consider a similarly accusational dismissal of comments made by a Jewish journalist as anything other than racist.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for what you said about the comment directed at me. :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're referring to my objection to Mbz1's insulting remark about you, I suppose? You're welcome. I'm really sorry you were subjected to such unpleasantness: It makes it much less fun to try to help things along here when people make remarks like that. But good on you for not responding in kind.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Notification. Collect (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The foregoing applies to a thread at Wikiquette alerts begun by Collect after I made this post to the talk page of our article on an advocacy web site that represents itself as a medical journal, and objected to his behavior in a thread I began at AN/I when admin Rklawton claimed I'd undertaken a sneaky, dirty, rotten, low-life, disruptive trick at an article they both watch over. I haven't decided whether I'll respond at WQA or not, but I'd welcome the participation of any neutral editor who'd be willing to carefully examine the claims made in either venue, and would be happy to listen to whatever criticism any such editor might have to offer. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Update: I've now added my own response to the allegations that were made in that report.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for providing that review. While I disagree with you, I accept that you found I was wrong, so I'd like to try to solve my issues. Would you mind reviewing my comments, and my comments alone from this point onwards, and dropping me a line if you find I have crossed the line? Thanks.

Further, and not especially relevantly, you misunderstood my statement about resignation - I had previously resigned from Wikipedia, not that I was resigning on a go-forward basis. Best wishes. Hipocrite (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Very good of you to respond in this way, Hipocrite; I know how very difficult it is to hear criticism of one's actions without responding badly, and you've managed that in this case. I've struck out the few words I wrote in commenting about your resignation, in response to your comment here, and have explained about that in a subsequent post to the page. ( This current thread, here on my talk page, refers to the comments I posted at WQA in a thread (permalink) initiated there by Hipocrite, btw.) I can't promise to assiduously review your comments on the talk page for the relevant article, but I will try to remember to look in from time to time, and will be glad to comment if I see any parties slipping into incivility or other unproductive behavior there. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would appreciate your review of Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Primary_sourced_description_of_trial. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've had a look, and will comment briefly on the talk page. But please note that I have no ongoing interest in this article, and don't intend to become involved in its development. My interest at WQA was limited to the civility issues that were raised, and to whether the WQA filing itself was appropriate.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

OS, I think we might disagree on what's a good DYK, but maybe I do not fully understand your position. We live in the world where in some countries we are debating the wisdom of introducing gay marriage while in some other countries homosexual acts are not only illegal, but may be a capital offense. Are you saying these facts should not be exposed by Wikipedia because this will offend some people? BTW, this is not an issue of religion, since all major monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) condemn homosexuality. It is more about the relationship between law and religion in the 21st century. Also I couldn't figure out what it has to do with the ArbCom. - BorisG (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Boris! I'm pleased to see you here. You always have intelligent, insightful observations, in my experience, and I feel ... let's say "productively challenged" in my own habitual ways of thinking when I consider your comments. I've been thinking about your remarks and questions, but I want to consider them more carefully for a day or two before I reply in any significant way. I'll just say, as a preliminary response, that most of my objection has to do with quality of research for inflammatory statements, and with what I infer as intent. The mention of ArbCom has to do with the particular editor's very recent year-long topic ban by ArbCom per ARBPIA. I was saying that I doubted she had been intended to keep fanning the partisan flames in other ways, if you follow. I'm sure she doesn't see herself as doing that; I do, however. More to follow in substantive reply to your questions in a day or two. Again, thanks for your questions, and for the opportunity to discuss them intelligently. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and thanks. This is certainly not urgent. But I just want to say that I have huge respect for Mbz1 because of her ivaluable contributions to Wikipedia, even if she cannot contain her emotions at times. And, in my view, contributions to DYK should be considered on their merits, not with respect to some past proceedings etc. Now I am glad not to engage in substantive debate of this complex issue for a day or two, because I am late with many urgent work-related things. In fact, I should not have even ventured into Wikipedia today, but alas, it's an addiction. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would support your article. I have an idea for a Venn diagram that would make a good illustration. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree there's a definite possibility our new friend is a sock, but I don't know the editors in this topic area so well. Any clue who it might be? Or is it too early to tell? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Check your e-mail often? I'd prefer not to try to run a potential sock to ground in public... Um, okay; that is an odd visual, I admit. ;-) Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense, will do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm sorry that you think I'm trying to attack Muslims here. I wish you would assume good faith on my part, I actually nominated the page because "Jihad" and "Tourism" sound like opposites and I found it funny to see them side by side. I seldom edit in Israel or Islam related issues unless someone asks me to copyedit one for them or if one is up for deletion (since I'm a raving inclusionist and all). Actually, I only got interesting in this article once it was put up for deletion right after it was created. Also, I've contributed hooks like this and this in the past.

Anyway, I think instead of trying to remove hooks relating to Jihad we should try to work together to make them as NPOV and Encyclopedic as possible. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You've got mail. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do fully recognize the dilemma, and can imagine − and sympathize with − the frustration it could give rise to. I'm genuinely sorry that's so, but I nevertheless feel very reluctant about replying by e-mail in this instance, for multiple reasons. I don't mind saying here, though, that at first I wasn't going to document the matter further, but then thought better of that and did so at the appropriate page. You might like to examine the second link I provided there.

I'll also say that I, too, know from experience how very hard it is to accept the consequences of something when one feels those consequences were very unfair. But without wishing to be patronizing in any way, I'd respectfully suggest that it might be better for your peace of mind if you were to consider removing large portions of your watchlist to a separate file for now, to be reinstated at some appropriate time. I'll also say that although I do check my e-mail pretty much daily, at least, and although I have no intrinsic or personal objection at all to your using it when you feel the need, I'd also gently suggest that that it might not be the best plan for you to avail yourself of it, if you can help doing so.

On a completely unrelated note, you know how much I admire your nature photos. A fragment of verse came to me the other day that seems especially apt re some of your macro shots, and I hope you won't mind if I post that to your talk. Let me know if you object, since I recall that you once asked me not to post there. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Two more messages, I find ...

The first with an explanation, the second fourteen hours later with a flame thrower for not having responded soon enough to suit you.

Well, I still won't reply by e-mail, for obvious reasons, but despite the renewed insults I remain sensitive to your difficulty. Further, I think you have a reasonable right to be able to respond in this instance. Would you have any objection if I were to ask the appropriate persons to allow you to post, say, a 300 word explanation on the relevant page?

You're still welcome to use e-mail, if you'll drop the insults, although I'd prefer that you reply here, if you feel you can do so with discretion. I'm not going to post a talkback to your talk page, though, since you've renewed your request that I not post to there. Since you're evidently so hot about this, I'll warn you in advance that it looks like I'll have little or no time within the next 16 hours, at least, that I can spend online. You should not take that personally; I have RL responsibilities, not just responsibilites here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry that you put the NPOV tag back on the "Start-up" article and pulled it back out of the DYK prep area. The people working on it have done so with good faith in a collaborative way. I agree with you that Mbz's original statement about mixed reviews would be good to have back in the lead. OTOH, an author section is not standard in similar articles. Furthermore, if we did included author info said info should be NPOV, which I don't really think was the case for the info previously offered about Senor. a lot of hard work has gone into that article by some very good people, os I hope you will soon be able to remove your objection. betsythedevine (talk)

Actually, I don't think it did get "mixed" reviews - although I only quickly scanned the sources involved, I didn't see much in the way of negative commentary at all. More importantly though, I think you should withdraw your objection - yes, there are some outstanding issues but DYK articles are not expected to be GAs. I did add an "author" section that was deleted, but as I'm not sure of the usual practice in regards to book articles, and am certainly not about the conduct a survey, I think the article should be given the benefit of the doubt in that respect. Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Betsy, Gato: Something's come up that will keep me offline for some while. I would very much like the opportunity to try to address the issues both Sean and I raised, but as I say, I have no time. I understand there's some kind of time pressure re DYK; I don't know what that is, and don't have time to check right now. And while I strongly dislike the idea that editorial process should be driven by the desire for a DYK credit, I don't want to be obstructionist, either. If a drop-dead date for DYK candidacy is imminent, i.e. within the next 48 hours, and Sean also agrees, then I'd not object to the tag being removed. It seems pretty lame to me that editorial process should be subordinated in any way to the timing of the DYK process, but I suppose I can understand how people get charged up about that, too. Btw, Besty, I think Gato's author info was fine. He didn't create the author's resume, after all. Would like to see something about Singer, too. No time to say more, though.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mbz1 sent me some email on this issue. Your recent edit makes a charge of deception against Mbz1 concerning Civilian casualty ratio. How do you know that is a purposeful attempt to deceive, rather than a mistake? If you don't have evidence, I suggest you modify the language used in your statement, including the section header. Evidence might consist of a person admitting that a certain reference didn't back the statement, but adding it anyway. In her email, Mbz1 observes that this exact language is still included in 1982 Lebanon War. She copy-pasted the sentence from the other article, taking the source with it, even though the two don't match when you read the source.

This is a mistake in the other article. It was introduced on 22 February, 2010 in this diff by an IP editor who only made three edits ever.

Mbz1 is responsible for the correctness of the changes she makes, and this was evidently a lapse on her part, since she didn't consult the source. But the charge of intentional deception should be withdrawn, in my opinion. The article on 1982 Lebanon War ought to be fixed. The wrong statement is still there in the first sentence of 1982 Lebanon War#Precursors to war. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Ed, for your help on this. I've been trying to figure out how to address this without appearing to act on information that Mbz1 isn't allowed to communicate, and also in accordance with my serious concern that what she says she did is consistent with an ongoing pattern I've observed. As you'll see from a previous section on this my talk page (link/permalink) Mbz1 sent me three e-mails about this. In the first she asked for a clarification, but also said she was using e-mail because she was concerned that asking me about this on talk could be perceived as a topic-ban violation. Since she evidently trusts you, and since I do, too, I'd like you to see those e-mails, and let you compare them to my responses I posted here on my talk. May I send them to you, or will you ask Mbz1 to do so?

I wasn't willing to respond to Mbz1 directly by e-mail because she had been pretty insulting a short while before on Gatoclass' talk page, (full context), where he's been kind of mentoring her re her topic ban, and previously, as well, before she was topic banned. ( I'm "stupid and cruel", evidently, because I previously objected to her pulling quotes in what I considered a skewed manner. ) But among other concerns, I didn't feel I could trust her not to misrepresent private communications subsequently, I'm sorry to say.

I did and do understand why she's upset, of course. But I proposed the idea of giving her an opportunity to explain on the relevant talk page in part because I wanted to see whether she would accept any responsibility at all for what she's said she did. I do believe her, actually, and did right away, although the situation was complicated by my seeing both her second and third e-mails at once. But it's also been my impression, to speak candidly, that she doesn't give a hang what a source says or where it comes from, as long as she can somehow get it into an article to support what she perceives are Israeli interests. Here's just one example of what I mean. I could give you many more, some even more outrageous.

It's likewise my impression that this most recently-discovered problematic edit cannot reasonably be considered a simple, good-faith mistake. Or perhaps, to put it in a way that's more considerate, to the extent that it can be, it's not any kind of mistake that I think she cares about at all, relative to the advantage of getting some content into an article that's favorable to her POV.

Take a look, for example, at the "sources" for the Abraham Reuel article she created. I noticed this a while ago; it really needs to be AfD'd, but I haven't wanted to deal with it because she's so aggressive and indignant, and dealing with that gets tiresome. The only two sources that actually refer to the subject of this article are A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes and a "Convert to Judaism" web site that appears (?) to have taken its narrative from the same book. Thats not the only problem. I've extensively searched both English and (to the very limited extent I'm able) German language sources, and haven't been able to confirm the existence of this person, under either his original German name or his later-adopted Jewish one. Finally, she apparently threw this article together so quickly that she got the subject's adopted (Jewish) name wrong. The sources, such as they are, speak of a "Reuel Abraham", not "Abraham Reuel". I'm afraid this just reinforces my somewhat jaded view that Mbz1 is typically so focused on "getting the message out" for Israel that the integrity of the encyclopedia re anything to do with Judaism comes in a far distant "second" for her.

( Late-edit comment: The Abraham Reuel article was taken to AfD by another editor. While it was there a single wp:rs was found for it by a different editor. 12:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC) )

I've tried many times, both here on my talk (see other sections) and on article talk pages, to try to engage her to address this and related concerns, and she's never been willing to stick around to do that. At this point, I'd prefer to hear what she has to say about this than to unilaterally apologize for what I see as being properly attributable to a consistent pattern of editing behavior on her part. If she won't speak up about that, with civility, and you have no interest in addressing the ongoing problem, either, I suppose I'd be willing to post a clarification to the page, citing your statement, above. But she's not likely to be especially happy with any such clarification that I could, in good conscience, post at this point.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

PS: As scorching as her third e-mail is, and as derisive as are the other comments she made to me on Gatoclass' talk page, I don't want her blocked. I might ask for that at some point if, once we resolve this particular problem, she were to repeat anything remotely similar in the future. But I assume she's still smarting from her topic ban, and I think that merits some consideration. I wonder, btw, if she ever noticed that I didn't pile on in the discussion that led to her topic ban? I didn't comment there at all. I did think she brought that on by her own actions, almost deliberately as it seemed to me, but I don't like seeing anyone tarred and feathered, either, and I didn't want to be a part of that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, what the hell. This doesn't close this matter, by any means: the behavioral problem re sources I've described above cannot continue. But I don't mind offering an olive twig at this point, either, if it'll help that happen.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The boot is rather on the other foot, I should say. I've been humming the, "Oh, I'm happy not to be an admin!" song intermittently all day today. I'd line up the shots for you and many of your very longsuffering extra-bit colleagues this evening, if I could.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have just been reading all the many comments others have left here expressing admiration for your courage, perseverance, and hard work. As well as, of course, the evidence for a few people who very much resented something you said.

I want to thank you for your courageous participation in trying to ensure that DYK articles really adhere to NPOV. I know you are disappointed about the issues that still remain at Start-up Nation, not to mention the uncivil comments made by a few on your hypothetical motivation. Still, the article is much, much better than it was when I flagged it as POV, and the people who collaborated there were really making a sincere effort to acknowledge concerns about the article.

I hope you are also cheered to see that increased attention to DYK's policy has been invoked to eject unbalanced articles on unrelated topics, for example Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Women_in_Vietnam. So keep on being the admirable person you are and if you feel discouraged, look back at this talk page to be reminded how many people respect you for your principled but civil efforts to make Wikipedia as good as it can be. betsythedevine (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Betsy. I shouldn't deceive you, though; I posted all the above comments myself, to elicit just such a reaction to my talk page. ;-) Seriously, I appreciate your remarks here, very much.

I know you didn't agree with many of the concerns I expressed about the article, but may I ask if you noticed the information I posted to the now very long talk page about why Israel would naturally have more Nasdaq listings than, say, Germany or Japan? It's simply that those countries have robust capital markets of their own, and Israel doesn't, as I discovered from the Milken Institute report that I added to article talk. The companies of those nations don't need to go abroad to go public, Israeli ones do, and the Nasdaq is their best alternative.

The Milken report was issued in 2005, right in the middle of the 2001 - 2009 interval that the book's research is based on. It presents a very different picture than the streets-paved-with-gold scenario that Start-up Nation gives us. It's true that the Milken report focuses more on small business while the book treats with mid-sized "start-ups", but the very adverse economic and business conditions that it documents in Israel impact both commercial sectors.

Do please spend 60 seconds and read at least the executive summary section of the Institute's report on the state of the start-up scene in Israel. It's available from smallbiztrends.com as this pdf. You'll be hard pressed to believe your reading about the same country.

I suspect we've done our readers a real disservice with this article. The first author of Start-up Nation is both a venture capitalist focusing on Israel, and affiliated with AIPAC. For both those reasons he's unlikely to want to present any information that's critical of the Israeli business scene: On the contrary, both roles make it very much less likely that he'd give us an objective, disinterested presentation.

And now that one of our very pro-Israel editors has dropped by the article for the first time, I see that the only one of those two factors that was disclosed in the article, Senor's AIPAC affiliation, has now been expunged. It's interesting that the fellow who just yesterday pleasantly favored me (and others?) with the pleasant terms "psychotic" and "hater" should show up at the article to expunge content, introduced by Khazar btw, for which I had been the principal proponent on talk.

Anyway, please do take at least a brief look at the Milken Institute report. I think it confirms the view that the claims made by Start-Nation that Israelis are superior in entrepreneurial ability to the citizens of every other country in the world are, indeed, "exceptional" ones that properly trigger waving a wp:redflag. I'm going to stop doing so, though. My arms are tired. ;-) But thanks again for your comments; I'm very sensible of your goodness in making them. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Gosh, if you posted all those comments at your own talk page, hurry over to my talk page and post some like that! I just got home from my first night running sound for a local theater's next production, so I've been shockingly offline for quite a few hours. Yes, I did see your information about start-ups as a metric for business success, and I think you uncovered some very interesting points but ... unless some reviewer for some WP:RS discovered and talked about those same points they absolutely don't belong in the article Start-up Nation, in my opinion. If you have the energy to write them up, they would be a good addition to the article start-up, which is a bit of a mess.

You did a lot of fine work here and I was deeply impressed by the amount of sheer brainpower that was poured out by Wikipedians over this article. I hope the near future brings you productive projects related to more interesting subject matter! Anyway, I'm just shrugging my shoulders at the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of a very few -- such editors are not typical of Wikipedia nor are they typical of the collaboration that took place at Start-up Nation, where so many good people played so much nobler roles. betsythedevine (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, I of course know that we couldn't say in the article, "Israel has a high number of Nasdaq listings because its domestic stock market is underdeveloped relative to other countries so they have to go elsewhere for IPOs". I never said we should; on the contrary I said we shouldn't. I think this is about the eighth time I've said so, now. But I did say the the claim of Israeli exceptionalism re entrepreneurship required an exceptional source if we intended to use Wikipedia's voice to support it. And I said the Milken Institutes's having painted so very different a picture of the Israeli start-up scene from the authors of Start-up Nation, who have a vested interest in promoting Israel as a financial juggernaut, should give us wp:redflag pause, at least. YMMV, and apparently it does, which is fine, of course. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk)

Hi Ohio, I just wanted to make one more direct appeal for you to remove the tag at Start-Up Nation. I think you've now been requested to do so by Betsey, Gato, Gabriel, Broccolo, Guy, and myself, and while I know your intentions are good, it's hard not to feel that you're setting up your own judgment over the that of all the rest of us put together. We've given you a fair shake to make your case, I think, and I believe two out of the six problems you listed have now been fixed. And I hope you feel I've dealt with you good-faith-y enough to know that I will continue to work to address your concerns. As a further show of it, I just added the author line I think you've been looking for (though I'm still not persuaded it's worth a whole section until we find more regular coverage of this aspect). Any chance you'd be willing to work with the consensus and take down the tag? Thanks for your continued work on this piece, which I'm sure must be as frustrating for you as it is for me. We are improving it, though, bit by bit. -- Khazar (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Khazar. I believe you overstate the case somewhat: Both Betsy and Gatoclass made it clear on talk that they agreed with many of the concerns I raised, especially, as I gathered, the presence of twice as much praise as criticism when, to my reading, the reviews were pretty mixed. Sean had said something similar, as I recall. In fact, I recall that the creator of the article had herself included a line in the lead saying just that, a line which has now been expunged. Brocclolo's opinion I'm afraid I have to take at a considerable discount in this instance, though: For example, he's stated his opinon elsewhere that reviewers gave the book a roughly 90% approval rating, a "4.5" out of 5, as he put it, which seems hard to accept as being anything remotely like objective.

This is all moot at this point, though: I'd actually told Gatoclass three hours prior to your post above that although I felt the tag was merited, I wouldn't oppose its removal. I assumed he'd see that, and would remove the tag himself since that seemed to be the wish of most editors, anyway. I know Gato is a very early riser in what I assume is his time zone, and I expected he'd see my message a few hours after I posted it. That appears not to have happened, though; in retrospect I should have posted the disclosure to article talk, instead. Sorry for the oversight; I regret the unnecssary frustration that appears to have caused you.

I do want to express my very sincere thanks to you for your recognition of my good faith in this, even while we've been on opposite sides of many issues. I'm fully sensible of yours as well. More than that, I greatly honor your having gone so far as to include the author's AIPAC affiliation in the article. I argued for that as strongly as I did, of course, because there's no organization in America that does more to present all things Israel in the most shining and positive light they can. I'm sorry to see that the disclosure you so graciously introduced has now been expunged by a new editor to the article, though; by the same chap, in fact, who yesterday favored me with the characterizations "psychotic" and "hater" over this article, despite our never having interacted in any way.

Anyway, thank you for what I certainly recognize as your good will and good faith in our interactions. I'm sorry it has been so mutually frustrating an experience in some ways, of course, but it's been a rewarding one, too. One of the things I like most about participating here is the exposure it affords to viewpoints that I might otherwise be unlikely to encounter. But more particularly still, I cordially value the opportunity to collaborate productively with people of good will who hold those opposing opinions. One becomes calcified in one's views without such a stimulus, I believe. In any case, I look forward to continuing to work with you, very much indeed. Next time I have recourse to the old number 7, I'll raise the glass to you, my friend. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem, and the pleasure is mutual. See you at the article mines. Cheers, -- Khazar (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I assume you are concerned that I use a single purpose account to push an agenda. I just want to ensure you that I have only one account and I contribute mostly in the Romanian wikipedia. My interest in the BLP policy comes primarily from an article in the Romanian wikipedia where for more than six months I was unable to eliminate the irrelevant ethnotagging that is taking place there in a particular article. Actually, my intent was to contribute to biographies of important Romanian musicians but after the ethnotagging experienced early on I am simply afraid to create any new biography article. I must indicate that because of the ethnotagging that is taking place in the Romanian article, the respective personality received death threats and decided to renounce her Romanian heritage banning her music from the country and vowing to never return.

In my opinion, the current BLP is excellent in spirit. However, I see that its interpretation is occasionally leading to ethnotagging. I decided that I should attempt to propose an amendment to BLP after seeing the long debate on ethnicity and religion lately on the discussion page for the article Dominique Strauss Kahn (DSK). I believe that a clearer policy would have prevented ethnotagging DSK for so many years in his biography. His ethnotagging was irrelevant to his notability (or maybe marginally relevant). Gigi marga (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Thank you for your explanation, which I accept entirely. I apologize for misunderstanding. One of the areas in which I'm active is plagued by socks. Some days it seems like half the accounts editing in the area are socks, and the latest technique is to do so with "throwaway" accounts that make just a limited number of edits and then stop, presumably when the sockmaster creates another new account. So when I see a "new" user account behaving in ways that new users don't typically behave in, like trying to influence policy, it sets off alarm bells for me. It might gather more support for your proposal if you were to disclose this same basic information on the BLP talk page in some way since I imagine other editors also would have similar misgivings. Or perhaps it would be better to create a user page, so your user ID no longer shows up as a "redlink", and to disclose this explanation on your main user page, with a brief comment on the BLP talk page to "point" to it.

If you'd like to remove my comment (and yours, which now follows it) feel free ... In fact, since you may be offline, I'm going to go ahead and remove my comment and your reply myself. If you object to that you should of course feel free to restore them. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clearing that up, OhioStandard. I suppose with hindsight I can see why you did what you did, and were it not for my previous interaction with Gigi marga I might have thought the same. Unfortunately, the blatent sockpuppetry we sometimes see on Wikipedia tends to make everyone a little over-suspicious, and we need occasional reminders that paranoia can be misplaced... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, yes; of course. Sorry for the uneasiness this must have caused you. As I said, I'm generally opposed to the broad-brush ethnotagging we've been seeing, as I know you are, as well. I'll need to consider it a bit more before I comment substantively on the proposal, though, if I do so at all. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the observation about my talk page and the need to clarify my position. I will complete my user page in Wikipedia in a few days. Since you mentioned about sucks, I have a question: how can I get support for investigating a suspected suck in another Wikipedia (not the English), when the suspect is also the highest ranking user (checkuser) in that Wikipedia? Gigi marga (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome; again, my apologies for having misunderstood. Since your question is somewhat sensitive, I've sent you a reply via e-mail. Let me know via e-mail, or here, if you don't receive it. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, one more thing: You might like to ask for admin help (try the help desk, or just use the admin help template, which I explain below) to sort out KARom versus "Gigi marga" pages. I see, for example, that there's already a user page for KARom; it would probably (?) be best to create a User:Gigi_marga page as a redirect to that, depending on which user name you've settled on using. It's my understanding that here on en:Wikipedia we have a fairly standard account name-change process that usually takes care of this, and I'm not sure it's been followed properly re these two accounts. I'm certainly not saying you've done anything bad or improper, just that the process doesn't appear to have been completed correctly. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here's what you'd do to request admin help at your talk page. Just post the following, along with what you're asking for help with, at the bottom of your page:

== Question for administrator ==
{{adminhelp}}

--~~~~

That should get you help very quickly, although you'll have to refresh your talk page to see any new replies, of course. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if you are not too busy if you could take a look at this page Hamas Covenant.I have done a bit of work on the lead but I belive that the article is just a rant against Hamas.It certainly does not provide a NPOV as wikipedia should do.It would need a lot of work to get it to a NPOV I feel.The subject is covered in the main Hamas page and I have edited that a bit to try and make that a bit more even.Can this Hamas covenant article be deleted or do editors have to edit it.It looks like just two editors are responsible for the work on the page.Thoughts? Owain the 1st (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Owain. I'll try to take a look later today. I haven't done so yet, but what you're telling me here makes it sound like it could be a POV fork. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I did just look at it, and at its history, including your attempts. I can understand your having said that you don't know where to start. I have some concerns around socking issues at that article though, and I prefer not to discuss those in public. I'd be glad of your opinion on that, however, since I know very little about that how people do that or how to detect it. If you'd like to hear my thoughts, drop me an e-mail to my all-lowercase user name at gmail; feel free to use a generic or one-off e-mail account for the purpose if you'd rather not use your usual e-mail, to avoid disclosing any potentially identifying info. I never do that myself, disclose any personally-identifying information online, I mean. I will say here that I noticed, from the article's history, that you're not the first person to make the observations about POV in the article. An account named Ian Pitchford who hasn't been around much lately left an edit summary, "Entirely one sided" last July. Obviously the unnamed imam who the BBC source says authored this document was about as politically unsophisticated my girlfriend's cat. There are certainly prominent Rabbis who feel the same way toward Palestinian Muslims as that imam felt toward the Israeli Jews. But most of them (not all, see Meir Kahane) are politically astute enough to keep their racist opinions from reaching the broader public ear. I'd need to research this much more closely to determine the question, but I'm uncertain at present of the extent to which the document can legitimately be held up as being representative of Hamas. I might undertake that research, if I can possibly make the time for it: I like digging into sources that way. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have reshaped the whole article to present a more neutral view.I was not too bothered about the article being there just that it was clearly just a POV piece.Probably needs some more work which I will get around to.How do you go about putting a protection on it?Like the 1R rule thing they have on other I/P issue articles?It is part of the I/P conflict I suppose and should be protected as such.Thoughts? Owain the 1st (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

OS, your comment is wise, but I wonder why you address it to only one side? BTW I brought it here and away from AE because that thread is horrendously long as it is, and the comments are not directly relevant to SD. - BorisG (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

An excellent point, Boris. It's my perception that, in that thread, the intention is primarily to tar and feather someone on the opposing side. But as I say, an excellent point, and I'm going to revise the post to reflect it. Thank you for posting here rather than there; that, too, seems wise to me, i.e. less likely to stir up drama. Please feel free to express your views here anytime. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! While I welcome your call to everyone to calm down, I also think we need a systemic change rather than reliance on good will. Unfortunately, this is not quite about a goat trespassing. This is about a real conflict which costs lives. Thus it is more than understandable that people (editors are humans) are passionate. And I don't blame them, as most of them (not all) are convinced that they are trying their best to make Wikipedia more neutral... and often violate policies in the process. Do I have a solution? No :(. - BorisG (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm acutely aware of the deadly nature of the conflict; it's one of the world's great sorrows, its longest-running shame and tragedy. I just don't think we need to import it here. I don't have a solution either, but you know what? Based on our previous very in-depth discussions on an unrelated article, I bet if it were up to just the two of us, that we could work it out. I'm only half joking; I know our opinions are generally quite opposed, but I've always had respect for the way you present yours, and for your willingness to actually listen as well as talk. We need more of that around here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Btw, you recognize, I'm sure, that the post could be construed to imply that SD is the goat, and that his trespass didn't amount to much, as I see it? Not enough to get out the torches and pitchforks for, anyway; not enough to reach for figurative weapons (like AE) over, in my view. YMMV in all good faith, of course. Don't tell SD I represented him metaphorically by a goat, though, please. ;-) Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well I agree that we could come to consensus. But two people cannot cover the whole topic, can they? Thus there is a need to constructively engage people who are more partisan... Not sure how to do that. Enough for today. It is 2am here (after watching the final stage of the Giro live). Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply