I have made a request for comment[1] on the "Intellectual controversy" section of the Oxford Round Table article, which I notice you edited today. Would you like to participate? --Tony Sidaway 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest warning
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Oxford Round Table, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see
Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Pairadox (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
AfD nomination of Oxford Round Table
What Wikipedia is not
").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
sign your comments
with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the
articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. ColdmachineTalk 23:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Blocked
I have blocked this as a
single purpose account. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
{unblock|process for dealing with (allegedly) disruptive editors has not been followed in this case - why on earth have you jumped right to blocking me? "Disruptive editing" calls for addressing me on my talk page, then RfC, then ANI, and only then block. My early edits were problematic, yes, but I have gotten a few big clues since then and now have a clear understanding of what it takes to play by the rules here.}Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also asked for a review of all of the blocks that Guy made at the AN/I thread that seems to have sparked this. Pairadox (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your persistent efforts on this. I have left a few comments at the bottom of that AN/I section ("Summary of account activity"). Main thing is, it is very reassuring to see people doing the sort of review that you and a few others have done on this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autoblock
I am currently on "autoblock" - I was blocked by "Guy" but am now unblocked by Sandstein (with Guy's assent). Autoblock appears to have nicked my IP address and is preventing me from editing even though the direct block has now been lifted.
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Request handled by:B (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppets?
If anyone is concerned about the possibility that I might be involved in sockpuppets on the ORT article, please see WP:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Drstones for my response to the "likely" finding on CU. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Renomination of ORT article for deletion
I have been unstruck at the AfD page. Your comments should be welcome, too. Heck, the "Notavote" template says so explicitly.Academic38 (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But darling, I couldn't possibly have been more polite - courteous - inviting - welcoming! I am ready to be floored by your wisdom and bravery! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you find all those cool icons for your user page?
Where do you find all those cool icons for your user page? I copied one (this user is an academic), but obviously some of what you have there doesn't apply to me. Thanks.Academic38 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me towards the article, perchance? I've forgotten the title. I do remember what it was about though, and there were quite a few reliable sources using it as a main source for their articles, so (in my opinion) it's notable. Of course, you can go through AfD anyway if you'd like, but I'll try a rewrite first. Cheers, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺ 13:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Change
Thanks for informing me! Your help is appreciated -- Shaahin
Shaahin (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i've been laughing for a whole minute because of your comment here. Bangpound (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Mostly, wikipedia doesn't lend itself to humour - things get very serious; it's nice to lighten the tone when possible. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I trouble you to expound upon your view of the external links policy? Which section in particular are you referring to? (If I didn't hold you in such high esteem, I would have reverted your revert immediately.) --NBahn 00:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That's odd, my signature doesn't seem to be posting properly..... --NBahn 00:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I don't have anything against the content of the link - I just don't see why to include this particular article and not a multitude of others. And then it becomes a question of keeping links to a minimum as per
WP:EL, I won't make a fuss - I'm usually pretty relaxed about seeing my edits altered. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
WVU Academic Fraud
Hello. I saw that you made a few edits to the WVU Academic Fraud/MBA Controversy. I think that this deserves its own article, since it is too complicated to adequately explain on the WVU homepage and it would not fit well in any biography pages. I have started a draft of such an article here:User:TheZachMorrisExperience/WVU. If you can make any suggestion or edits, it would be appreciated. I'd like to get this article into good shape before putting it in the mainspace and subject to AFD or other attacks. Thanks!--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re:Madonna Constantine
First, let me apologize if I'm doing this wrong or asking this question in the wrong place.
You wrote: "someone who sits in jail and claims "I'm not a thief" can safely be labelled a thief once convicted by a court; Columbia University is competent to determine that plagiarism has been established."
While I understand your point, I'm not sure that it is accurate in this case. I agree that Columbia is competent to determine that plagiarism has been established - but Columbia has not yet determined this. The president of Teachers College made this judgment publicly, but the matter is pending before a faculty committee.
While the press has all but declared Constantine guilty, they are not competent to judge the matter. Neither would a law firm hired by the College. A faculty committee would be. Plagiarism requires, among other things, a finding that an individual had access to the documents plagiarized. The similarity is undisputed in this case. The dispute is about priority and access, and no finding has been issued.
What the news pieces glossed over (and headline writers ignored) is that no competent authority has issued a finding on the issues of priority or access. The New York Times for example wrote that the college "announced" than an "investigation had found" Constantine guilty. While the president promoted this investigation to the media, it is unclear if the college had issued a finding of fact. Jwcampbe (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that Constantine is appealing, using the arguments in your final paragraph. But the sources used in this article clearly state that the college has determined that she has committed plagiarism and has been sanctioned (in an unspecified way). That she might have an argument for appeal doesn't change that basic fact. If there is indeed dispute about whether the college has in fact sanctioned her for plagiarism, that would be a different matter - but again as I read the sources there is no dispute on this score. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is one of the frustrating things about having more knowledge of what is going on than is in the press. But if the College has not issued a final judgment on the matter - which I would argue that they have not, and I don't think the press has reported that they have - then isn't this still a matter of allegations or accusations, even if the president of the college has instituted some sort of temporary sanctions in the meantime? I feel like the idea that the college has issued a judgment is more of a matter of the tone of press coverage (and content of the headlines) than any reporting within the articles, most of which at least, attribute the finding of plagiarism to the law firm rather than the college. thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Jwcampbe (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that frustration. I can also understand dissatisfaction with journalists - though in the case of the Chan article, there are direct quotes from university statements that seem to make it very clear the college has done. In more general terms, it might help to look at
WP:OR to get a sense of the approach I am taking here. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Help in reducing evidence
This is re: [2]
Thanks for reminding me know about the 1000 words. I'm having real trouble reducing it (I cut it down substantially but the evidence and diffs are 1000 words on their own. Can you offer any advise specific to the content? The new content could be another batch of evidence in a new case... but I was advised to put it there. Thanks Oboler (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind... reduced it as much as possible. Thanks again for the heads up. Oboler (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"non-Jewish Arab"
"non-Jewish Arab" is not an awkward phrasing insofar as one realises that "Arab" may indeed include Jews, as it does Muslims, Christians, Druze. One would so too justly acknoweledge that there are Berber Jews, Indian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Ashkenazi (West and East European) Jews, Sephardic (Spanish and Portuguese) Jews, Yemenite Jews, Persian Jews, Chinese Jews.
It is very important that this to be dinstinguished. Let us not forget that even today there are those that identify as Arab Jews, much more so yesteryear. To simply say one "Jewish" and one "Arab" introduces a connotation of the terms somehow being mutually exclusive of each other, a suggestion which is clearly not the case.
The partitioning of Mandate Palestine was in fact into 1) a Jewish side, and 2) a non-Jewish Arab side. That means, the Arab side was for Arabs of religious heritage except Jewish, while the Jewish side was for Jews of all ethno-cultural heritages including Arab.
Interesting ideas. To get them to stick, I think you would need to do two thing: first, demonstrate that this term is widely used in scholarly and journalistic discussions. Second, get consensus for it on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The division of the Palestine Mandate was into a Jewish state and an Arab state; it specifically uses the phrase "Independent Arab and Jewish States" and talks about "Arabs" and "Jews". There was none of this nonsense about a "non-Jewish Arabs". Jayjg (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We know what two terms were employed. That is not what is contested. What is contested, and requires clarification, is how one of the terms was employed. That term being "Arab". In the legal arena, the use of two innately non-mutually-exclusive terms in such a construct contitutes a legal ambiguity (given the recognized authority of the United Nations from where the resolution eminates from; a quasi-legal body, even if its resolutions and declarations are binding only in those jurisdictions which have enacted its authority as recognizable under their domestic legal systems). That very legal nature necessitates the interpretation of the ambiguous term. It has always boggled the mind how such flimsy wording and ambiguous terminology (given the purpose of the resolution) was employed in the first place, or how the interpretation of Arab had never been demanded by the international community for the actual implementation of the resolution.
It would be interesting if another area had been devided under the same guise with the same wording; Independent Ethiopian and Jewish States; Independent Russian and Jewish States; Independent German and Jewish States; Independent Indian and Jewish States. We should think about the implications that would have created for the world.
'Nómos' will be obvious to all. skedánnûmi (σκεδάννυμι), to disperse, shiver (into fragments). It's not that many don't understand: they are, many of them, highly intelligent techies: it's just that a genetic mutation has occurred, and the older style of learning looks like fossilized tomfoolery. For one thing, the old dinosaur world in which I was reared, was comfortable navigating its way through several levels of meaning. They are accustomed to a binary world, of simple choices, and quick economic 'solutions' that sweep complications under the carpet. I'm not playing 'the age card' as one remarked. It's just that I bumbled like a garrulous geezer into a youth culture that takes subtlety as a symptom of old-codgery, the doddering dialectics of oldsters maladapted to their world, which is the only 'real' one they think exists.Regards (p.s.It would be nice if you, or an acquaintence with specialised talents for it on Wiki, could copyedit the text. It has numerous grammatical or stylistic errors, apart from other problems) Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citation required
The text for which you requested a citation on the Jerusalem page runs:-
'Recent excavations of a
large stone structure are interpreted by some archaeologists as lending credence to the biblical narrative.'[citation needed
]
The point is discussed in
John J.Collins, A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Abridged and revised ed. Augsburg Fortress Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2007 pp.128f., and that should suffice for the required quote. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - but I can't really add a citation to a book that I haven't actually read (and my university library doesn't own it). It's not plausible that anyone would revert the addition of a citation like this - and if they did revert it because it was you who added it, I will immediately take it to AN/I. regards, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exquisitely correct. I'll plunk it down in the edits-to-be-made section I created. I must look like a bit of a wimpish stickler for not interfering on the page. Perhaps things will change in the future. The important thing is that one possible source is available to editors. (It may actually end up in your Uni library. It's a marvel of erudite concision, and will be a standard ref. in the future)Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting
Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. PeterSymonds(talk) 17:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
your comment
Regarding your comment here: Are your spiting me for coming up with a source that may become the basis for a useful addition of content? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source, please
Dear Nomoskedasticity, could you please substantiate your claim that Wikipedia:Autobiography rules out my editing supported by verifiable sources? Apcbg (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not about my understanding or lack of it. You wrote: “User:Apcbg, please do not edit this article, per WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY”, so it’s up to you to explain exactly where did you find such a prohibition for me to edit. Apcbg (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
development section
Don't you think that it can be argued that it deserved mention, if not elaboration? After all, this is the THE question that shapes the face of the city. I don't think it should get much longer than it is now. Best LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem - 1967 Unification or annexation
I have requested mediation of the discussion of the 1967 War at Jerusalem here and am currently alone in arguing that the term 'unification' should be paired with 'annexation'. What do you think? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I'm not going to get drawn into this one. I agree with the general notion that there is sometimes a tendency to try to depoliticise certain things re Jerusalem that are inevitably political. But on this one I just think it's not worth the fight. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I just want to clarify that I actually have been arguing for depoliticized language, am working for the heading to get changed to "1967 War" rather than "Division and unification." What I was pointing out is that "unification" is an Israeli perspective, so if people want the word included, they would have to include the Palestinian perspective, "annexation" to foster NPOV. But overall I actually prefer neutral language in this case, because it is a heading and should not tell readers how to interpret events, just help orient them to the structure. But this debate has been very very very very (did I say very?) frustrating, so I understand why one would want to stay out of it. (On the other hand, I think it's a lot more frustrating when one is accused of holding a fringe perspective, all alone, than when 4 or 5 other editors are fending off the blows together:( Excuse the guilt trip:) I am exhausted. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3RR
I really don't mean this to be hostile in the slightest, but you really must check the history logs before tagging red triangles to user talk pages. My last revert was 21:04, 24 July 2008, the one before 17:44, 24 July 2008, the one before 12:46, 24 July 2008 and the one before 12:09, 23 July 2008, thats a 37 minute break between my last revert and the the fourth last. ;)
And since we're talkin, please can I ask you to read my Merger Proposal turned Rename Proposal section on the Haredi Judaism talk page and give your honest view? I have no intention of getting into an edit war, its just that we have a sockpuppet of a banned user in the discussion heating it up.
I placed the warning when I did in order to head off a "violation" (i.e., knowing that the rule hadn't actually been broken yet), mainly because I figured that an additional revert in a 24-hour period would have produced a harsher response from one of the others; "lack of hostility" was genuine. As for the renaming proposal, I wouldn't object but I don't consider it necessary. I'd love to know who the sockpuppet is, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
enable email in your account prefs. ephix (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now with 200% more Jewishness!
Yes, folks, we're moving on up. This newsletter is now the newsletter for both WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Jewish History, and WikiProject Kabbalah. In the future, I may split them, but for now I think we'll be just fine with one. As always, any questions or comments should be directed to me, L'Aquatique.
A Special Dispatch
Just a note, not aimed at anyone in particular. By order of the administrative cabal, it is officially not cool (and possibly
Godwin-esque law
. Remember Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. In the News
A new class on the importance scale has been added- C Class- which covers articles better than start but not quite to B Class yet. It is up to the WikiProjects to decide whether to adopt them or not. Currently, there has been little discussion within our Projects, so if you feel strongly either way be sure to note so at your Project[s].
There is a proposal to reword the section on NPOV regarding religious articles. Please see
Wikipedia_talk:NPOV#Religion section - Disputes between historians or scientists and religious_views
to weigh in.
Thanks largely to the efforts of Xyz7890, a new navbox has come into being featuring Halakha topics. See: Template talk:Halakha to join in the conversation about how it can best be improved.
To Do
The Simple English Wikipedia is beginning a project of creating and improving articles related to religion, including Judaism. At the present time, volunteers are needed to propose our most important subjects for articles to be created. The official working list is here and a more extended list is here. If you are unsure of proper topics, you might try checking our lists of top importance level articles: Judaism and Jewish History. (WikiProject Kabbalah currently doesn't have such a list)
[Simple English] WikiProject Christianity is considering running a monthly drive wherein two or three top importance articles from English Wikipedia are simplified and moved over to S.E. They have extended an offer to work with us in creating a similar project for Judaism related articles. For questions or volunteer opportunities, please contact User:John Carter.
WikiProject Kabbalah is in dire need of an article rating system for quality and importance. If you are familiar with that system and have some time on your hands, please create one. It could also use some infoboxes...
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.
Newsletter delivery by xenobot 02:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Interestingly, you have no edits in common with the
One of the pages you reverted is on my watchlist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It's pretty rare for someone to have a page they've never edited on their watchlist. Do you have any connection with the user? Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for lack of edit summary - I had gotten lazy. Anyway I gather the situation there is now clear. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to take away the truth about the Oxford Round Table, we should delete this whole entry, it is wasting everyone's time. Also, your sources are not official, they are all opinionated. I have been researching this subject, and you seem to have no knowledge, whatsoever, about the Oxford Round Table. User:Astutescholar
Sir Moses Montefore, a Jewish activist who died 123 years ago this month
"Censorship" of names of G-d
There is an interesting discussion currently taking place regarding whether or not it is acceptable to censor (i.e. G-d, HaShem->YodHey) names of G-d in articles to protect Jews who may be reading or editing the article. You can weigh in here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Yahweh.
Article Cleanup Lists User:B. Wolterding has generously offered us use of his bot to generate lists that show which articles of ours are tagged for cleanup. You can read more about this service here: User:B._Wolterding/Cleanup_listings and if you would like to take him up on his offer, contact him on his talk page.
In the News
The Jewish BarnstarThe New Jewish Barnstar
There is a collaboration drive to get
good article status. For information about how you can help, see the talk page or contact User:Piotrus
.
WikiProject Kabbalah's only Featured and Good articles have been removed from the WikiProject, on the grounds that neither article (Diane Keaton and David Beckham, respectively) actually mention the subject's affiliation with Kabbalah. If you have sourced information linking either of these people to Kabbalah, please add it so the articles can be returned to the WikiProject.
After a rather heated discussion, there are now two barnstars for use by the Jewish WikiProjects, {{The Jewish Barnstar}} and {{The New Jewish Barnstar}}, and you can choose which one you would like to use.. Remember: barnstars are for rewarding users who are doing good work on the project or on Judaism, Jewish History, or Kabbalah articles, and anyone can give anyone else a barnstar. If you see a user who you thinks deserves a thank you, give them a barnstar!
To Do/Help Requests
If you have some spare time on your hands, we could use an article about a Kabbalah scholar named
DYK
if the finished article is eligible.
The folks at Shimon Peres need some assistance from someone familiar with both the Hebrew calendar and language to help them figure out the subject's birthday. If you can help, please see Talk:Shimon_Peres#Birthday.
We get a lot of articles that are being created and not announced! By announcing new articles, you attract attention to them, and the more people looking and editing the better they will get. If you would like your new article to appear in the newsletter, add it
here
for Jewish History.
There are some 40 odd standing requests for Judaism related articles. Please make them! I would, but I'm too busy writing this. .
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
University Bible Fellowship - Spanish Article
Your work on the English article for University Bible Fellowship is much appreciated, and was a major reason why the COI could be resolved. I have found that a Spanish article has been created, and has many of the same issues that the English article had: University Bible Fellowshp - Spanish. It appears that you speak Spanish, so would you be willing to bring the Spanish entry in line with the English entry? Also, can you point me to any Wikipedia guideline for non-English entries? Bkarcher (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relationship between different-language entries on the same topic is an interesting question, and I don't know the answer. You might try asking an admin, perhaps on one of the noticeboards. I'm confident that it won't work simply to argue that the Spanish article should be brought into line with the English article (why wouldn't it be vice versa, if one were starting with a different point of view?); I think it would be a question of trying to gain consensus on the talk page, and I see you have tried to start that discussion there. To work in another language, you might simply try writing simple sentences and using babelfish or google to translate it (and to read others' responses). The Spanish article is protected at the moment, and I doubt it will be unprotected until there is some progress on the talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My main concern is not that the other language articles conform to the English article, but that the Wikipedia issues be resolved. The other articles have little if any verifiable sources. Some of the wording is copied from English (or the English was copied from the Spanish, French or German). Bkarcher (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you (or someone besides me) check the references in the University Bible Fellowship article Controversy section? I found one that is about ICC, not UBF. Bkarcher (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allen Esterson
Nomoskedasticity, regarding your edit to Allen Esterson, the details you removed were neither 'tedious' in my opinion, and nor were they 'unencylopedic'. They were about the argument of Esterson's book, and they were quite interesting. I'm not going to revert your edit for the moment, however, if you want to remove such material you have to do more to justify it. Skoojal (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Bible spice, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.
If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. You may also want to move the page to EverythingWiki. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornixtalk 20:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Arnold
Hi, I read that you deleted my new article on Alan Arnold - as it infringed G11. (which it did at the time). However I believe I followed the rules and started the article with an 'UnderConstruction' tag; which I understood from the help text would allow me time to finish constructing the article and adding references. It appears I was wrong, so will prepare it off-line before having another go.
Will this 2nd attempt count against the article?
Please excuse any mistakes/omissions above, I've not been deleted before, so this bit of Wiki is new to me Bent strings (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I proposed it for deletion not because of the state the article was in but because after some searching it did not appear that this person was
WP:N. You're welcome to try -- perhaps put it on your talk page first and request feedback from other editors; if you want mine I'll be happy to offer it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Astutescholar for earlier checkusers. I am aware of the correct order of the accounts, and know most of the background of this situation. All prior accounts have been indef blocked. The RFCU is under Astutescholar's name mainly because whoever posted the first RFCU on this situation mistakenly used that rather than Pigeonpiece's name. For the sake of continuity, I have merely maintained that standard. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re: Jerusalem
Hi. First, I'm glad you agree that those edits needed to be reverted. Second, I admit I might have been too hasty in calling it vandalism, as least the first time. I assumed vandalism based on the IP's edit history, the article's history and the fact he left no edit summary and no message on the talk page. On second thought, perhaps I should have assumed good faith. Cheers, -- Nudve (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly not -- this one doesn't have the same nearly-incomprehensible English, the writing is actually quite clear. I do however think it's also very clear that this is another someone editing on behalf of ORT Inc. -- looking at the refs provided, it's hard to imagine how this editor could have known about those urls otherwise (I'm sure they were created recently for the express purpose of inclusion here). So, possible COI concerns -- but given my history of involvement on this page I'm reluctant to rush in with warning myself, at least without seeing how it develops. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you for your contributions to the discussion at
Talk:Landmark Education. Cirt (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Ronn Torossian
Thanks, I forgot about 3RR there. And I'm afraid I've unleashed the 5W meatpuppet army with my edit in the article. --Mosmof (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make unsourced edits without explanation. [[User talk: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binyaminyigal (talk • contribs) 10:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is your 2nd warning. Dont make unsourced edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Afajide
Please how do i add refencs to Femi Fani Kayode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afajide (talk • contribs) 10:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James David Manning
In regards to your revert of my removal per
WP:COPYVIO, I did some research. I would like to apologize for my removal of your and other editor's work, as it was incorrect. That section was first created in June of this year, updated by you in September and then other small changes made since. The website
I cited in my edit summary was, in fact, violating the copyright of Wikipedia. I contacted the admin of this website and the text has now been was replaced with the following:
I guess wiki didn't like us pulling info from his page so it was removed....
Thanks Wiki Lady!!
Thanks, no problem. The only thing is, I'm not sure that Wikipedia holds the kind of copyright over material here that actually prevents other people from copying it. Perhaps they are supposed to provide an acknowledgement of the source -- I don't understand everything about GNU and GFDL and all that -- but I'm not sure they were wrong to copy it. regards, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again please remove the quote it was only added to the site to show she seen we removed the paragraph once I got the e-mail your quote on this page was removed from our site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.122.205 (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Just waiting for the GFDL to be added to their server and all will be in compliance. As it is, they've licensed the article under the GFDL and cited us.
Comments on Femi Fani-Kayode: Re: Airport incident,girlfriend and money laundering (Libel and Defamation)
The above is not only untrue but it is also libellous,disinformation from web vandals and the gutter press.The lady(chioma ansoh)did not have any abortion and she is not Fani-Kayode's mistress.Fani-Kayode was never arrested in connection with any money laundring airport incident and the lady that was mentioned has even sued the paper that published the story about her alleged and so called money laundring in Nigeria.Even the Nigerian customs have denied it ever happened.The story was refuted on several occassions including Thisday Newspaper,Nigeria. Please dont allow such falsehood to be spread on ur site.Wikipedia is much bigger and better than that.
Toddst1 (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
The issue is not a "content dispute". The picture is causing bona fide discomfort to the parties in it. The article is not harmed by its lack. Why are you intent on causing emotional distress to people when other options are available? -- Avi (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being very straightforward in my approach to this. My main issue is with the notion that any page should be edited according to rules that apply only to members of a particular religion or group. As for whether there is genuine discomfort, there is no more reason to believe this is true now than when it was last discussed -- on which see here. I do not believe the couple in question know about the picture, and I certainly don't think it has been shown they know about it. What I think is that the picture upsets certain people who object to pictures of "their" women -- and if we cater to those feelings we engage in censorship. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you are calling me a liar when I say that there has been correspondence to OTRS about this, and I even brought the ticket number? That's rather kind of you -- Avi (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)My misunderstanding. -- Avi (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said no such thing, and I didn't even imply it. As I said on the article talk page, I am aware that there was OTRS correspondence. But the point that was made when this was discussed in February is that there was precious little reason to believe that the person who contacted Wikipedia on this issue was the couple in question; anyone could send an email message claiming to be those people. Now, given that this was the conclusion reached at that point and the photo has remained on the page since then, what has happened now to suddenly convince everyone that the complaint was real? As best I can tell, nothing; the only thing that has happened today is that an anonymous/IP editor removed the photo -- and now we're discussing the whole thing again as if we never did before. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry that I misunderstood you. I've struck my comments. -- Avi (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for why it came back up, another e-mail came in to OTRS this week. -- Avi (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TalkTalk page mods
Hello, I've been editing elements of the TalkTalk page, as you have noticed. In terms of Wikipedia culture and process, it's possible I may have made a couple of early errors (although not, I believe, in the content). For example, I don't know if it's even good form to write on someone else's Talk page - forgive me if this is the case. We've all got to learn.
Anyway, I'm happy to work with you on the TalkTalk page - in fact it would be worthwhile for me to have some etiquette advice from someone more experienced along the way. theredrocket (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, this is exactly the sort of thing people's talk pages are for. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
This is exactly what we hope for when we block someone for 3RR.
Request handled by:jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
I have notified the blocking admin of your request. Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's very kind. I have to concede it makes sense that the rule states that it does not matter whether the same changes are involved. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit in Ronn Torossian
In Ronn Torossian, I noticed your edit ended up keeping the bit about Torossian commenting on the FBI raid, but I'm not sure if a PR man simply commenting on an event is notable enough for mention in an article, considering it's their job to speak on behalf of their clients. I'd think it wouldn't really be notable unless the PR agency itself was somehow involved in the controversy (i.e. Agriprocessors), rather than simply speaking on it. --Mosmof (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly concerned about it either way. I do see your point -- but perhaps there is also some value in not reverting absolutely everything added/changed by that editor; I kept that part simply because it had the virtue of being properly referenced. --Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear on the divorce issue. Google it. The man's not married ?
Could you take a look at the RfC for "minimum wage"?
We desperately need some outside editors to take a look at this. Thanks. Academic38 (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD on Robert Mihaly
Hi, Just to let you know that I've put the Mihaly article on an AfD - see [[8]]. Please do feel free to comment. (I have replied to your comment re: artistic notability on the Mihaly talkpage - he fails artistic notability). My own feeling on the article is that it should be deleted for now. It can be recreated at a later date should Mihaly achieve notability as an artist or as an indivual. But I shan't get too hot and bothered if you say otherwise! All the best! Setwisohi (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD on Robert Mihaly
Hi Nomoskedasticity! Please review and comment on the Mihaly article on the AfD entry page (for the article). I have contributed to the notability argument both on the discussion page and on the page entry. It is my humble suspicion that the nomination of this article for deletion is in part the result of political bias against political viewpoints expressed in Mihaly's art (antiauthoritarian and pro-decentralization), viewpoints in direct opposition to those ideals supported on the Setwisohi's (spelling corrected 06Apr2009) user page (pro-centrailization). We all should strive for utmost objectivity, especially in areas of media, an area already incredibly compromised by political bias.Carolinequarrier (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sniding
My apologies. I will refrain from the allusion to potential bias in the future. My comment above is unfounded and adds nothing to the discussion at hand.Carolinequarrier (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of Essay Writers
Essay Writers, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essay Writers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Lucinor (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
I've made some wikignome edits to Tom Riall. Nothing major, I think, just augmented and checked the references, and added some internal links. You might want to look it over in case you are unhappy with any changes: I'm in danger of going WP:OVERLINK I think. I need to sort out some of the references at Serco but that's a bigger job, anyway I have copied the speeding fine references into the article there under new section "Serco#Controversy". SimonTrew (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like an email from Dr. Seal for verification, please indicate where it should be sent. Reidthaler (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Seal has emailed Wikipedia and requested that the article be removed:
It has already been nominated for deletion as the article may only
minimally meets the criteria for inclusion. Nonetheless, I request
that the article be deleted in accordance with your deletion policy 4.3:
4 Presumption in favor of privacy
4.3 Articles about people notable only for one event
I posted this article without Dr. Seal's approval or permission and request that you respect her privacy and remove the article as it also may pose a threat to her work helping disabled veterans.
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. think it would have been better to put a citation needed tag rather than deleting an entire esection of an artice.Jezhotwells (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You must not be familiar with
WP:DTTR, and you seem to have overlooked the part of my edit summary that characterized that section as fluff -- in other words, don't tell me I didn't provide a reason in the edit summary. You're entitled to disagree with my reason, but here's hoping you can find a more constructive way of saying so in the future. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry about that. I feel it would have been better to have placed a citation needed tag. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James David Manning Unreferenced
Good catch. I don't know what I was thinking.—C45207 | Talk 14:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the edit. He is an admitted child molester and I posted a link with info on the statement. I think this should be known for the safety of children and their parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.255.244.21 (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the other obvious issues, it's not even the same Manning. Get a clue... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I might of posted the wrong link.. my..bad, but the James D. Manning from Atlah is also a child molester. Soon as I get the info I am posting the info along with the correct reference.
Halilsoy Article
Hello Nom,
Thank you for pointing out neutrality articles and approaching the matter in
good faith. But would you please continue on deciding on
the deletion or not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Halilsoy. I don't
know who is going to decide though.
Greetings,
--mcyp (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion process has three steps: nomination, discussion, and then a decision made by an administrator. So it won't be my decision to delete it or not -- I simply nominated it. The discussion will run for another couple of days, to give more people a chance to contribute.
I have never worked at EMU, never been to Cyprus. regards, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Greetings,
--mcyp (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to be very skeptical, but do you have a friend/colleague that worked in EMU before? if so you may also have direct conflict of interest
WP:Conflict
. While I see from your edits, you are not interested in Physics or Cyprus at all? Why is this nomination for deletion is come out all of a sudden?
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't know a single person at EMU, currently or formerly. I don't recall how I got to the article on EMU; one follows paths via wikilinks and editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
West Virginia University
I would like to know the reason why you feel that the Heather Bresch scandal is relevant to the West Virginia University page. All other information on that page is historical, informational, factual, and pertinent information. The only purpose of that section is to damage the article. If you go to the pages of other prominent universities, you will not find a section of the page that discusses scandals no matter how major they are. This was not even a national news story. If you go to Florida State University's page you do not see any information about their recent allegations of academic dishonesty. If you feel this information is so significant, I ask that you create it as a seperate article, and then add a link to it. Please consider this information and get back to me. Thank you. Kbr1656 (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The place to discuss this is on the article talk page -- that is where changes can be proposed and consensus for those changes reached. I am not the only one you'd have to convince. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"European University" wikilinks
Hello,
Thank you very much for your message on my user page.
Let me explain the rational that I use by adding the section to the EUs pages.
First, please note, that by adding the links I did not refer to the direct connection between the EUs.
The objective was to faciliate search of other universities bearing the name European. That's why the name of the section "See also" (but not, e.g., "Direct connections" or similar). From my own experience of communicating in the international academic arena with students from at least three of the EUs mentioned, the confusion as for the location is often caused by the presence of the word "European" in the name. Thus, thinking of the use of the wikipages by potential applicants/people interested, it makes perfect sense to add the section.
If you have doubts, please have a look at a similar section at the University of Michigan wikipage (featured article btw)
which bears links to
, although there is no
direct "connection" between the three.
Second, there is, however, an important not visible side where connection between the EUs is more obvious. This is funding sources. Take for example CEU and EUSPb - both were established with the general and major contribution by George Soros.
Also EUI and EUSPb are both funded with reources of the European Commission (its TACIS programme in the case of the latter).
Finally, the connection between the universities is their recognition by European Council, and the presence of courses taught not only in the official language of the country of origin, but also in English. This is an important edge to the issue, and is the case of the EU of Lefke too. For example, it is a member of such a body as, European Council for Business Education (ECBE). It is also reconginsed/accredited by IUAA, WAUC, etc.
Thus, you certainly are free to remove the "see also" section on all "European" university pages. However, please, in case you decide to do that, then do so sonsistently: that is delete the "See also" section across all of the E. uni pages (last time somehow you left the EUSPb page unedited).
Yours sincerely,
Maxim Bouev Maxim Bouev 13:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filich (talk • contribs)
...to follow up:
Other analogies I thought about were University of London (with its numerous colleges) and University of California (with its numerous campuses). Although in these two cases all the separate consituent Unis are sub-parts of one overruling body in each respective country.
maybe it makes sense to call the section differently: "Pages of otehr European universities" or smth like that?
Regards,
Maxim Bouev 13:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filich (talk • contribs)
But this is the point: the word European simply doesn't mean anything here. Unlike the Michigan case, where they are all institutions run by one state. And a great many universities might be recognized by the "European Council" but not use the word European in their official name. Really, you're making too much of the use of that word in institution names. The European University Institute and the European University of Lefke have almost nothing to do with one another, as far as I know. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Omrganews, and I can't find other place to contact with you.
Some one from competition add info about European University is Unaccredited and thats is a blasphemy and try to create a negative impression of the institutions, the article was neutral without intetion of ad, only facts and history and informations like a lot of university example, but some one wrote negative things and I only trying to keep neutral like before. What the problem of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omrganews (talk • contribs) 09:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First things first: what is your association with European University. Do you work for them or study there? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I work with them, but our intention was add and articles not create an ad, but we frequently have 2 or 3 competition that usually changes the article for bad things, this was the reason that I modified the content because we found loss of prestige content. Let me know what is the problem, because I not understand of all. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omrganews (talk • contribs) 09:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, I read the FAQ/Organizations article and I create a discussion topic in the article, I hope you could read and give me your feedback about if its correct. Omrganews (talk—Preceding undated comment added 10:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Dear Nomo,
My name is Carl Craen. I m an Alumni of the European University Barcelona and working for EU.
I tried to give you the proof of the European University Status (accreditations, recognitions, memberships and candidate status of accreditation with ACBSP in the United States.) but the information was removed.
European University is a Swiss based business School with an official authorization to operate by the Canton of Geneva in Switzerland. We have also a branch in The Hague in Holland who is officially recognized and accredited by the Dutch government. The European University group went through a professional American Accreditation and is in the final stage with ACBSP Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs. Please consult their website.
I can provide you all the official documents and links if you want. But please help me to rectify the status of EU on Wikipedia.
A lot of former employees (some of them started their own school) , former co-workers etc.. are trying to damage the Image of EU in saying that we are not allowed to operate and are not accredited. We have a network of more than 15 campuses world wide and yes we closed 2 or 3 campuses during the last 10 years due to restructuring and this created some enemies etc...
So please how can I proceed in this case. I would really appreciate you help
Talk:European_University. As you will see there, however, [this is not academic accreditation, instead merely a business license. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This is our license from the public department in Geneva that allows EU to offer business degrees. Can you please check also the accreditation documents from the Dutch state. And our Candidate Status with ACBSP.
By the way IMD in Lausanne has exactly the same status that we have in Switzerland and it is one of the world's leading business schools. Is IMD recognized by the swiss state?
Please try to help me with issue
Thanks a lot
Carl--Orman1 (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read
academic accreditation. And please take these queries to the talk page indicated above. I will not reply to further messages left here about this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Your inquiry
Regarding your inquiry [9], the prior account was Smee. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is no secret that 2+ years ago, when he edited as Smee, Cirt was an edit warrior. His detractors claim he changed usernames to hide that history. Jimbo Wales and I were in contact with him at the time, and the actual reason behind several months' wikibreak and a name change was personal security and the risk of real world harassment. Since his return Cirt has made the most remarkable reform I have witnessed in four years as a Wikipedian: he has become a prolific featured content contributor, is Wikipedia's featured portal director, and has been promoted to administrator on five Wikimedia sites including this one. Cirt has also become an OTRS volunteer and was recently reelected to the arbitration committee at Wikinews. During the recent Scientology arbitration his actions were heavily scrutinized and the Committee concluded no wrongdoing since 2007. Durova306 17:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both replies. I wasn't here two years ago; anyway I have never seen anything in Cirt's edits that would make me dissent from Durova's assessment. I suppose the question is whether other editors have reformed in similar measure, e.g. Spacefarer after being blocked for sockpuppets; I don't see Spacefarer's recent contributions to the LE talk page as disruptive. Cirt, I do think it is very slightly disingenuous to link Spacefarer to the Eastwaybay case (as here) when the CU finding there was that they were unrelated. In any event it's possible that the topic ban is overkill given that things have been pretty calm on LE recently compared to older history (I don't know the situation on other related articles). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Eastwaybay case was linked to because that was where checkusers made the confirmed finding that Spacefarer had socked. Spacefarer's contributions to this topic and edits to the article itself are focused on removing criticism of the company. Cirt (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that former point now. And looking at Spacefarer's history, I think that editor is being disingenuous in trying to explain away the connection between the two accounts. Anyway, while I agree that he/she is focused on trying to remove criticism, that editor has made all of 6 edits in 2009, none of them disruptive. (I can see that Cirt reverted the ones in July to the litigation article, properly in my view.) So I guess my main point is that, while that editor has not turned into an active productive contributor, I'm not sure that recent activity justifies a topic ban. Normal vigilance on the articles might suffice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question
You asked on the discussion on the AN whether I am, or have ever been, involved in assisting for Landmark Education. I don't think it has any bearing on my contributions to Wikipedia, but I have no objection to giving you a direct answer. Some years ago I coached on several of Landmark's communications courses, which is a form of assisting. It involved working with four or five of the course participants and supporting them in healing rifts and misunderstandings with people in their lives. As stated on my user page, my only relationship with the company is as a broadly satisfied customer. It is several years since I did any of their courses (or any assisting) and I have no plans to do so, but I don't rule out the possibility that I might at some time in the future.
To re-iterate what I have also said elsewhere, my intention in editing that article or its talk page is to have it be a fair, honest, well-written piece in accordance with Wikipedia policies.
Thank you for your evident commitment to be straightforward and fair.
You plainly do have some viewpoint or opinion on Landmark yourself - do you mind if I ask you to declare it, and maybe say something about the experience that formed it? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I attended the Forum many years ago -- liked some of it, didn't like other parts. So my opinions are mixed and not very strong. In general I object to the use of Wikipedia by external parties to further their interests (I got started on Wikipedia at the Oxford Round Table page). It might sound like that attitude guides my edits on the LE page -- but I don't feel I have the same degree of confidence (in comparison to ORT) that that is the right way to describe the edits some people make. So I simply try to approach it in what ought to be the normal way: when someone adds to the page in ways that satisfy V and RS, I'm likely to object when someone tries to remove it, especially as part of a pattern of edits that add up to an agenda. This is why I insisted on including the "accusations of cult" sentence even though I don't really agree that LE is a cult.
You might want to be aware of this. I have undone it; not sure what will happen next and I don't intend to repeat my own edit there. regards, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Visiting the Philippines
Hi Nom,
You have been everywhere, except the Philippines.
Why don't you visit the Philippines? See for yourself a number of significant but underresearched topics in sociology in this country of some 7,100 islands. 122.3.211.251 (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nomoskedasticity, what shoul be included in the Dieter Korn article to establish notability for a paleontologist? You note in your edit summary that "notability not established here, and I don't see it in google scholar or news" the vast majority of paleontologists dont amke the news as the fields that are working in are not considered interesting to the media. as for scholar a search for "Dieter Korn" turns up 14,900 hits of which the first 5 pages are all papers authored/coauthored by Dr. Korn.--Kevmin (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the answer to your question is:
reliable sources, as against his own web site and cv. I'm sure he's done good research, but one's own publications don't count as sources or evidence of notability. And you only get that many hits if you don't use quotes for the search terms: if you actually search for "Dieter Korn" on GS you get 150. Slim pickings, I'm afraid. But I'd be pleased if you can find more. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Article (BLP) For Deletion
Thank you for your comment concerning the BLP nominated for Deletion Ray Joseph Cormier. Since the Afd tag was placed on the article, the 3rd attempt to have it expunged by the same individual, according to Wikipedia traffic statistics, over 53 different Wikipedians looked at it, and only you made a comment. Being the subject of the BLP, I commented after yours. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally having an interest in how the discussion goes, I´m not sure I know how to interpret the modification of your initial comment? Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I See! I am assuming you are asking others to read the talk page concerning the BLP before coming to a hasty opinion. Thank you. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFD
Yes, I realise that there may be (at some point) an article to be written here. But at the moment, this blatantly fails
WP:NOT and my close was attempting to minimise drama on the issue. Black Kite 21:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I've commented as well, and at ANI. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Enterprise Hub
I've changed
snigbrook (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That's great, thanks. Merge/redirect was what I was after -- perhaps prod was the wrong way to get there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message on my user page.
I am regular user of wikipedia, and a very occasional
contributor - usually an editor of minor points of language which
I feel offer a biased perspective. I can offer more references
for the article you have suggested for deletion.
I do find discussion around this issue interesting. Within a
western cultural context Calligraphy is often considered an obscure
cultural practice. It lacks the status the discipline has in East Asian
or Near Eastern traditions. I can understand the suggestion that a calligrapher
from northern Canada might be notable compounds the issue.
We are dealing with a practices and locations on a periphery.
I look forward to seeing how this issue is resolved and how the
article is altered. I would also value more of your comments on the discussion
page. Thank you for your interest in this article.
Kindly,
Bembo Bold
Francis A. Beer
1. Thanks for your comments. I had inserted references in the Personal History section from two early books of mine that referred to the facts that I have received Fulbright Awards to France and the Netherlands and had been at the Mershon Center at Ohio State University. These books were not self-published. One of them was from the Ohio State University Press and sponsored by the Mershon Center there. The other was published by A.W. Sijthoff in the Netherlands and sponsored by the John F. Kennedy Institute in Tilburg, Netherlands. The references provided external validation that was not elsewhere available.
2. The reference about the Articles was from the University of Colorado Political Science website.
3. In the War and Peace section, this is not original research. All of it refers to research previously published by established presses and journals.
Self-published in Wikipedia terms means written by you; it doesn't mean that the books themselves were self-published. See
WP:RS. I should add that I have limited interest in helping you edit that page, given that autobiographies are strongly discouraged here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
good catch!
The Editor's Barnstar
Great catch on Paula Dobriansky! That was an admirable piece of source verification. RayTalk 04:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alison Rosen (Journalist, TV Celebrity)
Hello Nomoskedasticity,
I was surprised at the speedy deletion of the complete rewrite I did of the Alison Rosen wikipedia page (note, I did not write the original, though I made some late edits to start cleaning it up when it was first nominated for deletion). The original page was more of a "fan page" that was not neutral, had no real references (only referred to blogs/you tube) and had no cross references. After doing hours of research on Ms Rosen, I determined the entire time line of her career, found her most notable journalism works, found numerous awards she has received, and gave references to support every statement - including links to articles that she wrote and, more importantly, links to articles that referred to her as editor, journalist, award winner, etc.
Please reconsider this article for "un-deletion". I read Wikipedia daily and have found far less accomplished people with their own pages. While that, in and of itself, is not a reason to keep a page, I think Ms Rosen's accomplishments (she appears regularly on Fox News in addition to her journalism efforts) do merit a page.
Thanks,
Scott (KarpayDM)
The problem is that the vast majority of references were to her own writings
WP:N -- references need to be independent, other people writing about her. There was precious little of that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
By the way, I didn't delete it -- I merely nominated it, and the deleting admin was Jayjg. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is so incredibly convenient how you managed to delete this page without ONE PERSON responding to my rebuttals and article improvements during the review process. I know that the original deletion proposer would NEVER dream of changing his mind so it was a lost cause from the beginning, right? Someone please explain why the fact that you 10 people don't know Alison Rosen is enough to delete an article. A free an open encyclopedia should allow a well-intentioned and unbiased page for a celebrity (not one person can deny she is a celebrity). You guys embarrass yourself with either your lack of knowledge, your lack of ability to accept that things you don't know of can still be important, or, worse, your power trips and inability to hold true to the original tenets of the Wikipedia project. You should be ashamed of yourselves. KarpayDM—Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpaydm (talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I have temporarily removed the information in question and have posted a new case to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard here. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib 01:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to say thanks for your welcome message on my talk page. Keen to contribute where I can, though time always a factor. Bikerprof (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok,i will do
all here find it is not fun anymore for scientists and teachers to work with wikipedia, uwe put his whole dissertation and 5 lecture books free on wikibooks, some stupid noname admins moved all so nobody can find them.
have a nice day
Oceanographer (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
School of Health & Rehabilitation (Keele University)
Hello Nomoskedasticity
I have undone your edit to the above article. Your rationale for merging this article with Keele University was that this School was "not notable by itself and does not warrant a separate article". This is merely an opinion.
Within the field of Health, Rehabilitation and Physiotherapy, this School is noted and highly respected. It is a regional hub of the National Physiotherapy Research network and has also been responsible for developing a framework for national Physiotherapy education, aligned with the NHS modernisation agenda. This is particularly noteworthy in the post-Darzi healthcare environment.
This article may not be of interest to individuals from outside of the rehabilitation field, but may be of significant interest to those involved within the Allied Health Professions. This School is as notable as any other within the University for constructive contributions (in terms of teaching and research) within its specific field. Other Schools (e.g. Medicine) within the University appear to warrant a separate article and as such this School should not be treated any differently.
Happy to discuss but the rationale for merging this article would need further evidencing/justification.
Yes I know that, as I said imo the guy is actually not very notable, I had a good look for similar content and found only mirror sites and blogs, the content is actually quite controversial actually in the way that it associated him with people living and organizations that may be affected negatively by association, it still does imo requires citations in the near future or removal for these reasons.
Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see that all the content in the section is supported by that one citation? I am searching the citation for names in the article and they are not there?
Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Roper
I see your adding some content to the roper article that is great, can you tell me where this has come from and if any content will be added from there... John Carvel, "Unattractive Contracts", The Guardian, 2 February 1999, thanks.
Off2riorob (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't understand -- the source is what the citation says it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you find it, and what content is to be added from the source?
Off2riorob (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm afraid I don't understand the point of these questions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My question is very clear, if you don't want to answer that is up to you, but either way, the citation you have added needs to be there to support some content, or be removed, if you are evasive for whatever reason it will seem strange on your part.
Off2riorob (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Have you read this article? "Unattractive Contracts", The Guardian, 2 February 1999, do you have an online link to where you read it?
Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Here is what you seem to have done..you have added a citation from where you got it you will not say, and you have supported this text with it...
Prior to his London Met position, Roper had been vice-chancellor at University of North London (which was later combined with London Guildhall University to create London Met).John Carvel, "Unattractive Contracts", The Guardian, 2 February 1999
Only the article that you seem not to want to tell me from where you have read it was written in 1999 and the merger and the creation of the london met was not or does not appear to have happened until 2002. Please correct me if I am mistaken, feel free to delete this discussion from here and I will move the discussion to the article talkpage.
Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course I've read it -- what a ridiculous question. It is reprinted here: [10]. What annoys me about this is that you would have been perfectly capable of finding this article yourself; on top of that there is no requirement that sources be available on line or for free. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I did have a fair look for it and was unable to find it thats all, the citation is not actually worth the content it is supporting but that is another issue. Listen, it is fine to disagree, it is not a battle, I think the biography is of little or no value and you think it is valuable, you thought that the details of the accusations on the orthadox jewish person were valuable and I don't...that is how the wikipedia works, in fact it is through the differing opinions of editors that a strong balanced wikipedia is created.
Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
No, not Christ - just an admin...
Following comments made at
WP:CIVIL in your interactions and composing of edit summaries. Since you have read the other parties request (by acknowledging through deleting it) I should be grateful if you would abide by it. Thanks, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps you could help me with something. I'm well aware of CIVIL and I made sure that my comments were very much about the content (though I grant the edit summary was not as careful). What I'm wondering is whether there is some editors' behavioral guideline that advises or requires competence. The editor in question has made such a hash of things lately that I'm tempted to describe his/her contributions as disruptive. Are you aware of anything that would support such a description along these lines? I'm thinking in part of a completely pointless AfD of
WP:BEFORE -- when someone fails to abide by a policy like this, is there some sort of recourse? thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no real requirement for competence (for which I am assuredly grateful) in editing Wikipedia - good faith is the only acceptance criteria. If another editors actions appear misinformed or disruptive (but otherwise good faith) there is the Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users option. You will need find another party who has experienced similar problems with the editor concerned. I would also comment that "competence", especially when it comes to evaluating sources, is often a question of subjectivety, and it is possible that opening a dispute regarding interpretations of sources to other opinions will result in an understanding better than opening a process... no matter how informal. The best option is generally to keep talking until agreement is reached, even if it is that there is an agreement to differ. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Game Show Congress DRV
You might want to check the sources that I dug up in the DRV, as well as this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, and this draft I'm working on, now with sources! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
University of Reading
I am unsure as to your motivations for insisting upon the posting of information about the University of Reading that I have suggested is factually incorrect. You seem very determined to keep it in even though it may have very negative effects. Your page says that you, yourself, are an academic... Could you explain? Pjwe111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwe111 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works with sources, not claims of editors. If it were otherwise, what would stop me from claiming that I also work at Reading and know of a secret plan to shut the whole department down? There's no substitute for becoming familiar with the various policies and guidelines for editing:
WP:OR, etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC) There is also no substitue for accepting that someone has pointed out that the information you are citing is wrong, and that there should be a discussion about it. You're aggressive attitude suggests that there are ulterior motives to your desire to post inaccurate information about UoR. You started the edit war! PhD in Sociology, huh? There USED to be Sociology at Reading, but not any more... Could there be a connection...???!!![reply
]
As it happens, discussion is exactly what ought to be happening, in lieu of deleting sourced information -- please feel free to contribute to the discussion page at that article. Now, if you're really interested in getting blocked,
WP:OUTING is a good way to go. Not that there's anything to worry about: yes, as a sociologist, I'm in a good position to know about what happened at Reading. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
Well I do not see that the times say that he said he got the guy at that place, he just says he hired him as a personal assistant, it is not a quote is it? please consider living people.
George Alan Rekers. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked
from editing without further notice.
Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I just requested a full-protect to let things settle down. I really don't mind (well, I don't like it, but that's MY problem) when the facts are against my side, as long as the facts are in the article. It just doesn't make sense to me for one side (mine) to be sitting there on the discussion page begging and pleading for people to leave off until the dust settles and then for others to be throwing in their own versions of reality and ignoring us or, worse, doing the whole "biting the newbies" passive-aggressive thing-y.
I am sorry you got dragged into this. This is so not the first article I wanted to work on when I finally have the time (of which I have next to none).
Panthera germanicus (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
civility note
Wikipedia is about discussion, do not claim I am being disruptive again with making your report, It is quite normal to discuss. Your comment.. " the same individual who is being disruptive" ... if you don't like it make a report or keep it to yourself, better if you strike it, but its up to you, continue with your accusations and I will report you.
How about if you just get off my talk page. Your posts again show difficulties with reading comprehension. Though I agree with the notion that you are being disruptive, if you make a great effort you will discover that the person to whom you should have written today about this issue is not me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me of your filing official charges. I most certainly not the only person making long comments on the page, nor am I the only person discussing contentious matters. I am not currently editing because I feel that when a matter is changing this rapidly, it is better to wait. I do feel, however, you are singling me out. Other editors are discussing matters equally contentious and, arguably, only tangentially related to the article. We shall see what the administrators have to say on the matter, I am sorry you feel I am being disruptive.Panthera germanicus (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About collocating vs. co-locating...
...and this edit of yours.
Well, I honestly didn't know, I stand corrected. And thanks for recognizing I was in good faith :-).
--positron (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You commented recently on some BLP issues concerning Richard Goldstone. I've written a considerably expanded and improved version of the article in my userspace at User:ChrisO/Goldstone. If you have any comments about this new version before it gets transferred into article space, please feel free to comment at Talk:Richard Goldstone#New version. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 UBF - NAE membership
UBF is most certainly a member of the National Association of Evangelicals. The NAE page was modified by them to only show a dozen or so main "denomination" members. UBF is not a denomination, so it's not listed, along with thousands of other organizations that are also no longer listed. I am reverting your edit. UBF's membership is easily verifiable. (http://www.ubf.org/aboutus/images/nae1.jpg) "The NAE is a body of believers made up of over 40 denominations and thousands of individual churches, organizations, universities and individuals who understand that together we can do more." (http://www.nae.net/membership) Bkarcher (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That link to a powerpoint presentation doesn't say anything at all about NAE and UBF membership. Even if it did, it hardly counts as a
WP:RS. As for your scan of the acceptance letter, that one shows that UBF was accepted to membership in May 2008, not current membership; I'll amend to reflect what is in the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, your edits are fine then; not much more I can add, given my COI Bkarcher (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a courtesy note to let you know that we have received a submission from Prof. Eastell, which I've merged into the article. It appears to be neutral and acceptable, although I haven't carefully checked the cites. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message today regarding Eastell. I haven't encountered this kind of editing before and would be grateful for a bit of advice. Some of the material is unsourced; other portions are based on self-published sources; some of the added external links don't seem to meet
WP:EL; etc. In short, I would like to edit. Can I assume that there's nothing special about the material you have added (at his request) that somehow places it off limits or privileged? I'd be surprised, but I'd like to make sure I'm not violating a guideline that I'm not aware of. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course you're welcome to edit it. I couldn't stop you even if I wanted to. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notification: General sanctions and 1RR restriction on Richard Goldstone
You are receiving this message because of your involvement at the Richard Goldstone article. Please don't consider it an assumption of bad faith
As a result of
Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here
and below.
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently
WP:AE
), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
In relation to the above, you are informed that the Richard Goldstone article is under a blanket 1RR restriction and violations of this restriction will result in escalating blocks and/or topic/page bans. Thank you for your cooperation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tea Party Movement.
Did you read the study? I think perhaps not. If you read what the actual sources say it is clear that there is OR going on. I have commented on the talk page. Arzel (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you have been doing here meets the textbook definition of
WP:HOUNDING
- following someone's edit history around and making blanket changes like this is not ok, unless there's some sort of content policy violation you're fixing.
This is a content dispute, not a violation. That makes this a Wikihounding violation.
Please stop that editing immediately and discuss in good faith on ANI. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Warn all you like, bub -- you've followed me to Rekers and Rubashkin, so a complaint along those lines is very likely to go nowhere or to boomerang. Anyway, Haywood is under discussion at BLP/N; the only path to an article via your contribs was Yvette Cooper. Hardly a strong case you've got there, now, is it? ttfn, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judge Reade
Hey, it's not about Reade, but it fits in "Rubashkin Trial" to provide some background info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.152.39 (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it can go in an article about "Rubashkin Trial" -- but it isn't relevant enough for the article on Reade. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was money, but the cops say "Passports and cash!!!" while Rubashkin says that he kept his passports in his bedroom, as well as money, underwear, etc. You know? This was never verified. Prosecution never proved that they were together or in the same suitcase. Understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lower458 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WSJ is a source alright. They dont mention the money thing at all since the prosecutes didnt push that in court. It was something they just said in a press conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lower458 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, do you have to use sources ALWAYS even when nobody is going to deny that? For example that a judge was nominated by president Reagan? In our case, the Jewish community was very nervous about the bail issue, although I cant find a good source. Only local Jewish papers perhaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lower458 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone insists on a source, then there has to be a source -- or the text in question can be deleted. If you want to insist on a source, you can ask for it on the article talk page or add {{
I now see that Wsj DOES quote the money issue. My bad Lower458 (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, constructive, I think. If you look objectively, the issue WAS about his "dual citizenship", not the cash or the passports. Everybody has cash and passports. The issue around Judge Reade's decision was re the dual citizenship - according to the sources. You don't have to defend her if the sources don't, and the sources are there for people to click for more info. I think my writing is pretty sourced and objective, unless you want to nitpick.... Lower458 (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lower458 (talk • contribs)
Yours reaches back a bit further -- go with yours, but make sure to add the last revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The chameleon editor
He's back to making disruptive edits at the Stephen Ambrose article and talk pages. I've posted an AN/I in case you're interested.[12]Eurytemora (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated references to me as pal and bud and suchlike
I am not your pal or your bud or your anything at all, thankyou. Please refrain from your personal terms of endearment. I have asked you this before and only recently, please stop your personal name calling.
And here I thought you might be leaving me an acknowledgement of your mistake -- silly me... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unreferencedBLP
Please look at the many links at the bottom of my page for references.
to wit...
External links
* Gary Lee Nelson's home page
* CDs available from CDeMusic
* Nelson featured at Subtle Technologies Festival, Toronto
* Nelson at ArchivMusic
* Featured composer at the 5th annual Florida Electroacoustic Music Festival
* Society of Composers Internation University of Akron, 2001
* Ohio Arts Council grant
* Boston Museum of Science commission
* Nelson interview on NPR's Pulse of the Planet
* First prize in music, Contours of the Mind, Australia
* "Further Adventures of the Sonomorphs" published paper
and in particular the following
1. (cur | prev) 20:36, 30 July 2010 VernoWhitney (talk | contribs) (6,333 bytes) (OTRS permission verified - removing copyvio blanking; removing speedy delete tag - professor is a credible claim of importance) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyleenelson (talk • contribs)
WP:COI. I've never been burdened with the acquaintance of Sir Peter, but if I meet him I'll be sure to convey the felicitations. Please convey mine to Howard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you
Thank you very much, Nomoskedasticity, for your comment at
The bigger problem is his constant WP:Soapboxing on Atzmon's antisemitism and history of personal attacks against those (especially me) who don't kow tow to his attacks on Atzmon and instead try to follow wikipolicies. I don't want to get in middle of the WP:ANI, but please notice this new rant on his Userpage which includes But if you want to find out about Gilad Atzmon's long and well-documented association with the Holocaust denial movement, well, give up on Wikipedia and try REALITY for a change, because it's going to be wikilawyered away here. In short, a victory for antisemitism and its administrative enablers. Under
WP:ARBPIA this can be brought to Arbitration Enforcement and probably would result in a short block anyway. I don't know if it's appropriate to add to your ANI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
Thanks -- hadn't seen that. Hard to believe the suggestion was actually taken seriously...! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mrs. Lily Safra
I have noticed that over the past 6 months you have made numerous changes to Mrs. Safra's wikipedia page, recently you have taken down the section regarding her philanthropic activities. According to you, this is not properly sourced, but we do source it from various independent organisations that she chairs, therefore I don't see why you keep removing this important aspect of her life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.176.17 (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your Revert Eastern Mediterranean University
Nomo,
I see you reverted my edit on
Dondegroovily (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Please do not do reverts without any reason
Please explain why I didn't "convince" you before doing reverts.--KerAvelt (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained, my dear -- you simply don't like the explanations. Anyway, I wonder if you have paid attention to details here and actually intend this message for me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Who knew? Well, I see that one going nowhere. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welsh Family
Hello, I declined your edit warring report against Welsh Family (talk·contribs) but please note my communication to the user here. I figure they are prevented from editing anyway since the page is locked, but maybe we can encourage some discourse in the mean time. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Nomoskedasticity. You have new messages at Rangoon11's talk page. Message added 16:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Ed
Ed is not English at all and as the Jewish cat is not defined ( he is only ethnic jew) that also is not correct, thanks, perhaps you want to create
Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
your allegation of me being an anti Semite
I have struck it, if you replace it I will report you for a personal attack.
Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Your refusal to remove your accusation is in bad faith , please do not repeat such claims ever.
Off2riorob (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I will call it as I see it, and I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions concerning how the AN/I discussion went. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were clear requests for you to remove your comment and that yor comment was wrong, which it is. Your personal attack is nothing more than that, I spit on your insult.
Off2riorob (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Now now -- we wouldn't want to be uncivil, would we? tsk, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I spit on your bigoted worthless insult.
Off2riorob (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Miliband
Hello, I'd like to request that you have a look at this. thank you, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I've struck out the relevant section and offered clarification Nil Einne (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
templates and suchlike
Why do you do things to people that you don't want doing to yourself such as this diff yes you know you made three reverts, but you add template warnings to me in the same situation. Also in this diff you complain that someone templated you and you are a regular and yet you template regulars?
Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
If you're not going to take notice of my recent methods of letting you know when you are going astray, then I'll not bother continuing the effort, I'll go back to templating you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating suggestion regarding editing on Jewish topics
I am going to repeat the suggestion that I made on the Geim talk page: I think it would be best if you stopped editing on Jewish topics. You clearly know very little (evident also in your question to JoshuaZ), and for some reason you are allowing your personal opinions to override proper editing practices (mainly, being guided by what is verified by reliable sources). Given your usual approach to BLPs, this is strange -- you don't normally approach BLPs this way. The fact that you are doing this on BLPs in relation to Jewish issues suggests to me that you and the encyclopedia would be better off if you avoided them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 8:36 pm, Today (UTC+1)
People with one Jewish grandparent are not John who is Jewish by any stretch of NPOV consideration.
Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Since I posted this issue on your own talk page, I will only continue the discussion of it if you put it back on your talk page -- I see no reason for it to be moved here (unless, perhaps, you think it might be something you don't want others to see on your page). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite amazed that you use say something like "I think it would be best if you stopped editing on Jewish topics. You clearly know very little (evident also in your question to JoshuaZ), and for some reason you are allowing your personal opinions to override proper editing practices." I am not defending Off2riorob, but you seem to be doing the same things that you accuse him/her of. Generally, to be regarded as Jewish by Orthodox Judaism or in the State of Israel, the mother has to be Jewish. However, other denominations of Judaism differ in their opinion.
Specifically, I want to refer to a section you placed on the
Haredi page on the alleged "process of reconciliation" between Haredim and Secular Israelis. This section clearly reflects your own personal opinion and does not cite any sources to back up the analysis. Some would argue, that trends in the last few years indicate a rise in tension and anything but a process of reconciliation.--Halma10 (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
If you can point me to the edit in question (e.g. a date, or a "diff") I'll be happy to provide a proper response. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my wiki blp
Dear Nomoskedasticity can we have a private email discussion about my Wiki BLP - would you be kind enough to email so that I can explain to you directly the problems the Wiki page has caused me since it began to profile certain unfortunate issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.1.142 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any concerns of this sort are best raised at the talk page of the article in question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your 3RR complaint
Hello Nomoskedasticity. Your argument at
WP:UNDUE
. If you would drop this sentence for now, subject to further discussion on Talk, this might allow admins to close the 3RR more easily.
The other improvement I noticed that may be possible is that you cite this to page 134 of Inbari's book but he himself has a footnote 12 which I could not see in Google Books. Possibly footnote 12 is an actual work of Ginsburgh. In the disputed areas, citing the man himself is the most persuasive. If you are willing to discuss this, let me know on my own talk page. I am not closing the 3RR for now; possibly someone else may do it in the mean time. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Legal Threats. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Nomo, this arose because you made a false accusation that I violated
WP:COI. Cirt has made false allegations about me to three message boards in retaliation for an editing dispute at Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System#WP:COATRACK. Can you stop his harassment, please? I also need oversight, because his false accusation could result in another meritless lawsuit against me (this very real concern of mine is what Cirt is caling a "legal threat"). THF (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
THF continues to make veiled legal threats across multiple pages. The
WP:COIN report I filed only makes reference to on-Wikipedia postings, by user THF himself. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to UK Border Agency appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 23:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It looks like this was a rather silly case of DTTR, but your edit was clearly non-NPOV, and used a non-reliable source at that (an opinion column from the Guardian of all places does not belong in a section like that). ninety:one (reply on my talk) 23:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I hardly expected a relatively-experience rollbacker to make an edit like that. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 13:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as I have the time to find a non-op-ed source for it, I'll be back to re-add it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(inappropriate template removed by the editor who placed it)
Hi - apologies for
page created primarily to disparage its subject. I'm sorry if that wasn't your intent, but that's how the page looked to me. Please don't take offence personally. Robofish (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
In that case you ought to strike the parts that do not apply -- such as the notion that I have made statements attacking people/groups of people. If you don't want to cause offense, then fix the parts that both cause offense and are untrue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well -- that was resolved quickly (with thanks to HJ Mitchell). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I've removed the template. In any case, an admin has decided it doesn't qualify as an attack page, so never mind. I still have serious doubts about the article's appropriateness, however, so I am thinking of taking it to AFD instead. Robofish (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who said my post was rejected? It was discussed by three editors who offered changes which were combined in the text. It was not rejected at the time I posted. It is now being questioned and there is a new proposal on talk page - please participate in the discussion. I invite you to participate in discussing the new proposed version currently being discussed. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The clue is in your edit summary: "rv" -- and in the fact that the previous edit had reverted yours. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should read the talk page first. Three editors reviewed a text and made a combined document. No more comments were made for 24 hours, so it was posted. Two editors who had not participated in the discussion reverted the text - including yourself. There was a request for people to discuss the changes on the talk page before reverting, including a request on your talk page. Hopefully, orderly changes will take place from now on. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for edit-warring on Arbcomm candidacy??
Okay, I gather there are people who watch my talk-page, and I'd like to pose a question in an inconspicuous place (I'd really like to avoid roiling the waters further): has it ever happened previously that someone has been blocked for edit-warring on their own Arbcomm candidacy page? I figure this has to be a first -- but then again this place can get pretty crazy, so who knows. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for mediation of Ed Miliband
A request for
guide to mediation requests
and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.
Hello. I have reviewed the WP.RS guidelines and am unclear on what the issue is for which you have marked the Avinash Kaushik article for multiples issues. All new links added were directly to valid non self published sources. Details in the book section was added to highlight the books are not self published. Additional context in the External Links section was to share more on notability with magazine articles, references, thought leadership videos with university. Being new to wikipedia it would be great to have your specific guidance to improve the article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simontu16 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published in this context does not refer to how books can be published by the author not by a regular publisher. What it means here is that the reference is to something published by the subject of this biography.
WP:RS explains this, and it also explain what types of sources are required to support claims made here; just because you can find a web link for something doesn't mean it meets the standard required here. Again, discussion about the article itself should take place on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the clarification and patience with a new wikipedia contributor. You had requested citations and the ten additional citations provided, where you had requested them or asked for clarification, and none were to the subject of the biography. They were directly to sources that show participation claimed in the bio. This was per
WP:RS. Additional context was provided regarding notability in the main bio as well as in the External Links (magazine bios / articles, thought leadership articles and videos published by the prestigious Wharton School of Business). Hence I am confused about your summary rejection of citations, new content and notability context and not just parts you consider self referencing links from this version [[14]]. Could you please be more specific which of the three parts you are concerned about? I would be sincerely appreciative of your help. I'll be happy to address concerns behind your summary rejection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simontu16 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
This is self-published. So is this. This is from youtube, which does not meet
WP:RS -- what is needed is scholarly works, or at least good newspaper reports. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Nomoskedasticity your guidance is much appreciated. I'll be removing the self-published sources per your advice and changing the article to only point to other sources. Could I engage you in two quick thoughts? Would you consider, under Self-Published Sources online and paper of WP:RS to apply in this case as Kaushik is clearly a well established expert and (per your note above) 10/90 was a rule first published on his blog? Secondly, you had requested citation for external speaking engagement, you point to youtube above. Does an video of the actual talk not serve as a citation (proof, I assume that is what you wanted to see when you wanted a citation)? In both cases use youtube video was published by the official channel of the conference where Kaushik spoke (for which you requested a citation). Please consider preceding two points as my humble attempt to understand you objections better. Regardless I will take your advice into account and make changes per your guidance. Thank you again for your patience and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simontu16 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, again, I'm afraid youtubes are not considered acceptable sources. As for the rest -- I need to reiterate that discussions of a specific article need to take place on the talk page of that article, not on my user-talk page -- so please go to Talk:Avinash Kaushik. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood re youtube videos. I had made multiple updates to the article per your guidance (no self reference links, no youtube links, and links only to external valued sources). Could you please review and if it meets your approval please remove the multiple issues notice? If not could you share further guidance? One last time I want to thank you again for your patience and guidance. This has been a bit painful but I have learned a lot and the article is better due to your objections. Thank you very much. Best wishes.
I've removed the self-pub part. I'm still not convinced of notability, and what would help is additional citations to better sources. Has he been profiled somewhere, e.g. in a regular newspaper? Look, I know it's hard getting started here. There is certainly a need for more editors, and I want to encourage you to learn more and contribute. But there is indeed a lot to learn. Unfortunately I can't promise that this particular article is going to survive -- but perhaps you'll want to work on others as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the encouragement Nomoskedasticity. Thank you. Per your request here are links to articles in newspapers and magazines (from around the world): The Globe And Mail, The Montreal Gazette, Interactiva (3rd cover story), Financial Post, AdvertisingAge, Twinkle magazine, Netherlands, El Pais, Spain, Computer World, Inc. Magazine. Kaushik has been quoted as an expert, author and a industry thought leader. If it is of value here are a couple of non-newspaper (non-magazine) but authoritative Internet design & marketing sources: Applied Arts, MediaPost, Destination CRM. Do these profiles and articles help address your concerns regarding notability? From your deep experience would you have guidance of how I can include above information in the wikipedia profile to ensure it is of value? Thank you again for all your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simontu16 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're blocking me on the basis of an essay?? I really fail to see the disruption involved in my restoring the thread title to the one I opened the discussion with -- if anything it was a misrepresentation of me for some other editor to distort it by adding that word. I'm happy to promise not to do it again, but I'd like some review of the notion that I was disruptive here -- it's not as if I tried to re-open the discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well a reviewing admin is free to disagree, but you twice unarchived the thread and then after the last archiving removed the word "allegedly" from the header, despite there having been a fairly clear consensus that your complaint had no merit. Looks disruptive to me. Rd232talk 21:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is untrue that I unarchived it twice -- I did it once, after it was archived by a non-admin who has a pretty poor history with me. Nothing was going to follow from my restoring the thread title to the one I opened the discussion with -- it was only an attempt to avoid being misrepresented (insofar as people assume that the thread title was created by the person who started the thread). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, unarchived just once, sorry. But "avoid being misrepresented" looks a feeble excuse. No manner of negative aspersion can come from anyone thinking you wrote the version with "allegedly". Rd232talk 21:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I still fail to see why it is inappropriate for me to restore the title to the one I started with. I did not try to re-open the discussion at that point, and I merely thought it was rude for someone else to have changed the title. Blocking me for removing a word from a thread title seems pretty excessive (though again I'll be more careful in the future if people really object to this). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get the sense that the block might have had roots in the misconception that I had unarchived the thread twice (which I agree would have been disruptive even if I hadn't gone back to the thread title). Would you have blocked me for deleting that word if it had been clear to you that I had unarchived it only once? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, at the time of blocking I thought it was once, then I looked again. Anyway, I've unblocked now, because I'll accept that you weren't intending to be disruptive and didn't know that section headers belong to the community, so it is perfectly acceptable for headers to be improved. And in this particular situation your action was neither necessary nor helpful. And in general, we seek neutrality in section headers, not conclusions.Rd232talk 23:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How very odd. When you looked again, what did you see that led you to the misapprehension that I had unarchived it twice (not having seen it that way in the first instance)? As for consensus on the thread -- three different admins have now suggested to Scott-Mac that it would be better to avoid G10 in those situations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was the four edits from 19:50 to 19:53: the first and third are yours, the first is unarchiving, the third lacks an edit summary, the fourth is off2riorob noting unarchiving. Let's not post-mortem the different aspects of the consensus (
WP:NOTAVOTE). Rd232talk 23:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I hardly see why not. Look, I get it that some people are thoroughly fed up with this issue. Others agree that there is an ongoing problem. The fact that it is provoking anger among the former is a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so much for the notion that there was a consensus against my perspective... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was only talking about the ANI thread, which is all that turning an allegation into a statement of fact in that archived ANI thread's header relates to. Rd232talk 22:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs
Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
editing
sorry for the misunderstanding but i wasnt trying to break any rules. Hfran had asked for refs if I was including material, so I edited with refs and added the material again. You had asked for citations and said that some were not direct citations, so I added refs I could find where you had said no citations and edited it accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbright8 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
December 2010
There is no war. Any so-called "edit war" has been manufactured by a contributor Nomoskedasticity (talk) whose reversions violate Wiki policies for referencing controversial issues. Did anyone read my response on the appropriate discussion page before sending this "notice"? I note that the instigator of this non-existent war reverted the text three times or more but was careful not to violate the "24 hour rule" and then referred me to an ongoing discussion which did not exist save for his brief remarks which were used--apparently--as a ruse (along with reference to the "24 hour rule") to support his inappropriate edit and to cast me in a negative editorial light. Is Wiki going to deal with form or substance and meaning. 74.88.196.81 (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re 3RR at 'Ed Miliband'
Thanks for the heads up, but if you check, I've only edited the category 'British Jews' twice. The third edit was the removal of the category 'British people of Polish descent' (on the basis that this wasn't notable either). I don't think that this would qualify as a 'revert' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting a category is not a revert? Hmm -- go ahead, take a chance... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
holidays
Hi, I appreciated your comments about removing stuff from my talkpage and am taking that on board moving forward. Recently I have supported a lot of your contributions, especially regarding BLP issues. I know we have fallen out but I have not a poor feeling towards you and your contributions lately and I would like to move forward with you under fresh energy. No hurry, no worry, regards.
Off2riorob (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for leaving a gracious message. I am happy to think in terms of a fresh start. We're still likely to disagree at times. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, disagreement with an willingness to find a compromise from a friendly position is a good thing. Thanks.
Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Image Editing.
Hello,
I have been trying for so long to load an image from my laptop. please guide me.
Thanks
--electricfield
Im a new user, Apologies if i conduct any mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricfield (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editing Pictures
{{
helpme
}}
Hello
i have trying to upload some university pictures from my laptop to the article on Girne American University,
please can anyone guide me .
(Farhan Afzal 23:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC))
Go to this page, if you took the pictures yourself. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What if there are no published sources to cite other than the personality themselves?
Please understand that such reliable published sources do not currently exist that I can cite (if they do in the future, I'll do my best to cite them). However I am representing Shaykh Muhammad moving forward and so can verify the information with full authority.
I see from the history that unverified and malicious updates were carried out by unknown authors, can you also advise on how to report or avoid such situations please?
I'm afraid that, in the absence of sources (on which see
WP:OR; the second link explains why it will not be acceptable to rely on the authority of people who have personal knowledge of the subject. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi again,
I'm still working to fix up the references and sources. Could you please advise if the following example Biography would be acceptable format and citing sources wise? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza_yusuf
No, I'm afraid that article would not be a good model at all -- most of the statements in it are completely unsourced, and some of the sources currently being used do not meet the relevant standards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Degree Jungle
There exists very few reputable ranking systems for online colleges. Perhaps the most reputable is from oedb.org which hasn't been updated for the past 2 years. Degreejungle.com's ranking system provide helpful insight into these colleges by ranking them on a set of metrics including average cost of attending, % of student's receiving aid, % of students defaulting on student loans and so on. Not sure why you reverted my edit on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiser_University. Ranking systems help prospective students cut through the marketing hype that bombard them when looking for a good place to enroll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon.millard (talk • contribs) 22:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
revert. The edits are so complex it is not easy to follow. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
This one restores the following text (for a second time after I had removed it twice):
His job description, or U.N. mandate, deliberately excludes Palestinian human-rights abuses. As Dugard said on October 19, "I have a limited mandate, which is to investigate human rights violations by Israelis, not by Palestinians." The pre-determined outcome, however, has never been a problem for this lawyer. Far from being embarrassed, he launched into this year’s diatribe this way: "Today I deliver my annual criticism of Israel’s human rights record."
The source is an op-ed entitled "The U.N.'s Spokesperson for Suicide Bombers" -- so this editor is putting statements like "far from being embarrassed, he launched into this year’s diatribe" in the voice of Wikipedia, not of the writer.
The second one changes an assertion that the Israelis bombed two schools in Gaza to an assertion that they bombed only one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DONALD TRUMP
CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT I DID WRONG ON THE TRUMP UNIVERSITY ARTICLE? I WORKED REALLY HARD TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS STUFF... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatali (talk • contribs) 18:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to spam the talk page; I'm not associated with that church or the pastor, just an interested and curious observer who's heard a lot about him from friends and acquaintances. Thanks again for your help and I hope when I've finished it also meets your approval. Alexandra Adotrde (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you check the talk page, please? Thanks! Alexandra Adotrde (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I will make a note of your comments on the talk page. Can you please vote here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robb_Thompson. Another editor wants the article deleted because Thompson isn't notable apparently. Many thanks, Alexandra Adotrde (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At present, the Gary A. Olson page is disproportionately skewed toward a politicized situation at Idaho State University that although referenced by news sources is not advanced from a neutral perspective. For years, this page has served as an overview that details a scholarly career from a non-inflammatory standpoint. I would like to know how one might approach returning it to that state while maintaining the standards wikipedia has established.Kaj0123 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could start by observing
WP:PEACOCK. If you want to edit according to Wikipedia's standards, then it's best to learn what those standards are. Start by clicking on "help" at the left. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
If I haven't observed the WP: SOCK protocol, it was unintentional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaj0123 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Romana_D.Annunzio
Hi would you please comment as to if you have verified this content is actually in the book - thanks Romana_D.Annunzio blpn
Your question has no basis in a relevant policy; my edit summary was correct, and if you'd like to argue it wasn't then be my guest. The passage in question is verifiable in a source that clearly meets
Would you please comment there, you have not answered my simple question as to have you accessed and verified the disputed content yourself, please comment on the BLP noticeboard thread. Its not a difficult statement for you to make considering the disputed complained about content you have inserted, thanks.
If you would like to pose a policy-relevant question, then I will be pleased to answer it. If you would like policy to be different from what it is, then please follow the suggestion above. You are welcome to infer the answer you are seeking from my reply here, but I suggest you refrain from acting on a misapprehension of what the relevant policies are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under the circumstances and that you appear to have added disputed complained about content that you have apparently not verified or accessed - I have remove it again - please do not replace it without either verifying it or getting support for its inclusion at the BLPN. Thanks -
Not happening, dude -- you want policy to specify that material be available to meet your own idiosyncratic standard of laziness, i.e., be available freely on-line -- and that's just not how it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Plesase stop edit warring content you have not verified and that is complained about at BLPN - please accept this as an edit warring warning. Thanks -
Except that it was indeed incompetent, as my fix showed. Or did it seem competent to you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Karen Armstrong
Funny how you didn't give that 3RR message to the other editors with whom I'm currently in dispute. I wonder why that is. Sleetman (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yitzchak Ginsburgh
Please, do not try to tell me you are just removing contested unsourced content in this article. You are trying to make a point. You do not actually contest that those two rabbis are Ginsburgh's students. I have added a source for one of them, which proves that contesting would have been a stupid move. The other one I have seen myself at Ginsburgh's lecture's a few times, and he is definitely a student of his. If you'd like to see that sourced, add a {{Citation needed}} tag, and wait for two years at least, like usually on Wikipedia. Or even better, just don't do anything, since, as I have argued above, you do not actually contest it, nor is this information likely to be contested. In short, you're trying to make some unclear point, in the name of upholding Wikipedia's rules, and that is called wikilawyering, and I really do not appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be having a difficult time understanding the fact that I am contesting it. That makes it contested. How delightful that you have provided a source for the one -- but the other will be removed until there is a source for it. You'll appreciate, I'm sure, that your own observations at public events don't work here within
Of course I understand that. I have tried to find a source for Yehoshua Shapira as well, but so far haven't found one. BTW, the two Shapira's here, Yitchak and Yehoshua, are brothers.
What I would like to ask you is: why are you contesting this information? I fail to understand your rationale. Debresser (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you, for your comments regarding the quality of my improvements to the article
Santorum (neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
AfD not complete
Hello Nomoskedasticity. In the AfD notice at Jason Carley, your link to the AfD discussion is showing as a red link. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. And yet when I click on it, it goes to the AfD discussion. I used twinkle to do the nomination. Do you know why this would happen, and/or how to fix it? thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it works now. Maybe the electrons were on strike. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Message about London London_Metropolitan_University page
Hello Nomoskedasticity. Thanks for your message.
I am a lecturer at London Metropolitan University. I am contributing to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Metropolitan_University and I declare a potential conflict of interest. I am aware of COI rules and intend to exercise great caution when editing this page.
My intention is to make contributions which provide a balanced account of the history of the university and to respect wikipedia's neutral point of view principles.
My intention is to participate in deletion discussions about articles related to my organisation and I have been careful to explain the reasons for the updates I have made in the Edit summary.
Chris Lane
chrislane40 (chrislane40) 8.30, 27 May 2011 (GMT+1) —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
No worries
Nomoskedasticity, with regard to your revert of this change I had made in response to talk page suggestions — no worries about it, perhaps you are right that it merits additional discussion, that is a good idea. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you have a 2nd message. -- Avanu (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am just making a guess, but were you thinking this was related to the previous discussion with Macwhiz and so on? I've taken time to peak with him and I think we're communicating well. Anyway, hope you're well also, take care. -- Avanu (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sincerity line
I realized when I added it that it was a bit of OR, however, that preceding line needs something for balance. It comes off as a sincere offer, when there is pretty much no way in hell that either party would make good on such an agreement. Also the comment "the interest starts now" strikes me personally as showing a lack of sincerity. You're right to remove it, but I do still feel there needs to be a balancing sentence there to provide the reader some insight into this offer by Savage. -- Avanu (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Santorum (neologism)
Hello, Nomoskedasticity. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks...but no thanks I can count thanks. I've also responded to the point you've raised under Armstrong's talk page under the NPOV section just in case you want to respond (anytime soon) to my response. Sleetman (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip on the 3r rule, I am new here so I don't know them all. But it does appear he reverted my article multiple times today. Any help you can suggest in getting the content added to this article I would appreciate. The facts are undisputed, but somehow we are in the sandbox. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandots (talk • contribs) 22:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you learn more about editing here before continuing to add this (even after the 3rr period is up). The way to work it out is to participate on the "discussion" page for that article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pioneer and Murray
Would you please justify your revert of my edit regarding Murray and Pioneer? What Murray said is both relevant to the article, and based on a reliable secondary source.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The chief criticisms about the Murray quote were that the analogy was false and that there's no reliable secondary source. The first criticism is OR and irrelevant in any case, whereas the second is no longer true as I used a secondary source. So what's the problem?--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In some areas definitely not. :) But in this specific case I am sure that you personally would have been willing to believe me on my word. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMD - International Institute for Management development
Hi Nomoskedasticity,
I believe that IMD has earned the "Triple Accreditation" from AACSB, AMBA and EQUIS. However this information is not found on the main article page. I think it is useful to have it listed. Can an accreditation section be added? Auditguy (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources seem okay. I would refrain from using the phrase "triple accreditation" -- that phrase isn't in the sources and adding it here would amount to
WP:SYNTH. I'm also not sure a separate section is needed -- it might be sufficient to add a sentence or two at the end of the history section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks. Points noted. Have simply updated the education section to reflect the accreditation by the three organizations. Auditguy (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit War Warning - Sir Peter Scott
You are in danger of entering into an edit war following your multiple reverts. Further reverts will result in a report being filed. This policy works all around. --Lorifredrics (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am at lost to see what was wrong with my changes, I was using wording from here about what the claim was about, my aim was to remove the very small sentence "The WIPO ruled against Scott", there is no need to build suspense in the article. You point about removing references also seems strange, references are there to verify claims, we have a link to the WIPO ruling, the other ref is not providing anything.
The secondary source is to be preferred over the primary. The sentence you constructed was hard to read and ungrammatical. I don't want to make a big deal about it -- I simply disagreed that it was an improvement -- but I do think we should follow the secondary source (and certainly not delete it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a second attempt, please let me know if you would like me to make any changes.
I don't have a issue with the rewording, but I do with the removal of Fredrics name ? I don't want to just revert, but can you explain why you think it should not be in the body of the text ? To me it adds context and given his name is mentioned in the body of the refs section aids understanding.
I don't see how it "aids understanding", and I think it is preferable to omit the names of people who are not notable by Wikipedia standards. In future please raise issues like this on the article talk page, not on user talk pages. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does, but I am going to leave it as it. I posted it here as I was directly addressing your edit to try and understand your thinking, I did type it into the talk page of the article, but as it was a question for you chose to post it here as it seamed (and still does) the better place to seek the answer.
There is no such implication, because being Jewish is not necessarily a matter of beliefs. Again, either usage is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is such an implication, due to the structure of the category tree. In any case,
Ah -- what was there doesn't comport with your argument, so you change it -- nice. In any event -- I understand that you see it the way you see it. In language that everyone can understand: "French Jews" doesn't imply (Jewish) religious belief. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. That is precisely why there is also a
The only way your statement makes any sort of sense is if you start with the view that being Jewish is only a matter of religion. In language that everyone can understand: one can be a "French Jew" without having any religious beliefs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categories follow their own logic. They do not follow the confusions of natural language. If
There's no confusion in the "natural language". In language that everyone can understand: one can be a "French Jew" without having any religious beliefs. It's really not confusing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me: what category would you use for someone (say, a French someone) who is Jewish by conversion and believes fervently in the whole thing? (I'll address the question of what WP:CAT says, after you've kindly offered an answer to that question.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who converts becomes a descendent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They consider themselves of Jewish descent and since ethnic identity is a voluntary self-identification and not "racial", they would be entitled to be in French Jews just like any other Jew who professes or practices the religion of Judaism. The fact that this also places them within one of the "Jewish descent" categories isn't at all a problem. This may seem a little confusing because of the naming of the "Jewish descent" categories, but they are at root categories of ethnic self-identification and not racial or genetic tagging categories. Therefore a person is of Jewish descent if they say they are, which they do when they convert. They are "adopted" into the tribe and are considered of Jewish descent in their communities, even if some other communities of Jews don't accept that self-identification.
P.S. You might want to ask Andy the Grump to review my answer and see if he agrees. I think he will but I may be wrong. He is also very knowledgeable about the category system and the nature of ethnic identity vs. racial tagging; you might get some insight into exactly what he has been consistently objecting to for some time. It might not be quite exactly what you've been thinking it is....
This is impressive. By which I mean, the extent to which you're willing to go in bending what is otherwise perfectly normal use of language, in order to get to the conclusion about categories that you prefer. What we then get is that DSK is not a "French Jew", while a (French) convert is, דוקא by virtue of being "of Jewish descent". Is all of this anything more than how it seems to you, or is there a discussion somewhere that indicates a consensus along these lines?
As for WP:CAT: in your understanding, an application of set theory for determination of subcategories amounts to requirement for an "AND" condition, not "OR". I don't see this at WP:CAT. You keep mentioning how "confusing" the result is. In this instance at least (possibly others as well), a different approach is preferable, not least for being less confusing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that (your quoted sentence) is the best you can come up with, then it's clear that WP:CAT does not say what you think it says. As a sociologist, I'm quite surprised to learn that I'm unfamiliar with the current treatment of ethnicity; having published a number of articles that discuss Jewish ethnicity in particular, I'm even more surprised to learn of my ignorance of that specific topic. Your ideas could hardly be generalized: if I chose to self-identify as Japanese, would I be "of Japanese descent"? The form of expression "On Wikipedia, we [do this or that]" seems awfully authoritative -- though curiously lacking in references to discussions that would demonstrate that it's anything more than ruminations. In any event: I do see how you see things, but I don't feel bound by it, again not least because it produces results that are (in your own words) confusing -- hardly worthy of an encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but this wilful twisting of concepts and refusal to understand plain English is tiring. Nomo, what has your "Japanese" example got to do with anything - Japanese is only an ethnicity and not a religion so it's apples and pears, compare what is comparable. The Jewish issue appears to be unique and complex but this has been thrashed out about a thousand times in the last two months, DSK is "of Jewish descent" but the fact that he is a practising Jew (or not) is neither notable nor pertinent to his public persona. I have lived in France for 20 years now and only learnt that DSK was Jewish due to all this arguing on Wikipedia, i.e. it has never been an issue in France (because France considers itself to be secular so people don't go around wearing their religion on their sleeve even if they are believers).CaptainScreeboParley! 20:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're tired, then posting here can hardly help. I'm not saying he is a practicing Jew -- only a French one. Willful twisting of concepts is what is getting us to the idea that a convert is "of Jewish descent". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there are other clear statements about subcategories being "included" within their parent. For example, "Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." and
Sure -- but most of that is about how to organize categories, not how to apply them to articles. If anything, your first quotation suggests including DSK in "French Jews", because for the "ethnicity tree" it is the most specific one he belongs to. The question not addressed is, how to deal with sub-categories that intersect two (or more) different trees. Your version of logic requires AND (and results here in confusion). Another possibility, more appropriate to the case we're discussing, is OR. (I'm really curious about your answer to my "Japanese" question, by the way; even more curious about references to discussions that make all of this anything more than your version.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe it was Max Weber who introduced the concept of "
So we have a category system that results in confusion and uses poorly-worded labels -- and yet you insist on rigid adherence to it, according to a system of logic that isn't specified. Do tell me where I'm going wrong... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're going wrong by insisting the BLPCAT doesn't apply to a category in a religious subcategory tree. Anything that can cover both ethnicity and religion must be governed by BLPCAT, so even if you were right about how the categories should be used or named, you'd still be violatiing
If you like to discuss proposing renaming the categories so that they more clearly match what the category trees imply, at least that would be useful. I've made such a proposal here, where it could be discussed some before proposing it at
But I'm going wrong in that way only if I'm wrong about where *you're* going wrong. Irony-detector malfunction, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really an excuse not to improve the category naming so that it corresponds to the categories' positions in the category tree and makes it completely clear whether a particular category refers to ethnic or religious identification.
It's ironic and hypocritical of you to threaten to report someone when:
A) You violated the rule several times, and
B) You refused to actually examine the source before claiming that "you have a curious notion of 'unsourced'".
In the future please don't criticize or threaten others for violating rules after you yourself have done so. And further please refrain from patronizingly trying to "educate" others.
And more importantly, please read the reason for edits and examine the sources before dismissively returning them with disdainful comments.
International Institute for Management development (IMD)
Hi Nomoskedasticity, I left the following note on the IMD discussion page and would appreciate/welcome your comments, thanks.
The IMD article is much too long especially with the alumni list. Is there any objection to editing it to keep only the blue-linked alumni names?Auditguy (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commendation
Greetings, Nomoskedasticity, just wanted to express my appreciation for your recent edits of Harold Covington. Stubbing controversial articles can often precipitate nasty conflicts, so it was heartening to see your constructive approach. Best, Skomorokh 01:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- there's enough good material, there's no need to use the dodgy stuff. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
toc
(cur | prev) 23:17, October 1, 2011 Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) (200,621 bytes) (Undid revision 453435475 by Off2riorob (talk) of course it is -- what on earth could that mean?) (undo)
(cur | prev) 23:10, October 1, 2011 Off2riorob (talk | contribs) (200,604 bytes) (remove - not beneficial) (undo)
The idea is if the templates are smaller than a screen view and you can see the toc that there is no need for the click to go to toc template - If this is clearer now do you continue to have an objection to removal of the template?
Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
On netbooks there is still more than a screen of templates. Don't want to make a big thing of it -- but I suspect in the end you'll have to explain the collapsing of the article list as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't view on a net book - why there is still more than a screen visible on that platform is strange to me but I will take your word for it. Tidying of templates is the way to go imo - we are getting swamped with them - the linking to in some cases articles that would not be considered reliable to include in the article seems naval gazing to me and the large template is of no benefit to the article either imo - simply collapsing it seems a totally reasonable position - others may likely disagree.. regards -
Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Anthony Bologna afd
If I'm just being stupid please don't hesitate to say so, but didn't you mean to say on your !Keep reasoning "if there had not been an article prior to the pepper-spraying, then it would have been a matter of BLP1E..."? LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No -- if someone had written an article on him prior to the pepper-spray incident, discussing only the matters covered at earlier points, then it would have been BLP1E. With the pepper-spraying incident on top of the earlier stuff, BLP1E no longer applies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I believe finally I got it now, thanks. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:BLP2E during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Stirling University
Are you aware that your insertion about a tribunal case in Stirling University has been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDav22 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear -- if you think you can wave "BLP" around and be exempt from 3RR, you might have a rude awakening. My own edits (in my view of course) more closely conform with
[16] I haven't followed this info, but should we specify which police department said that? And whom? Who did McQueary say he reported it to. "Police" is vague. The police rebuttal is specific. Jesanj (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why this would be desirable. It would also be possible to provide so much detail that the article becomes difficult to read. So it would be a question of balance, and at this point I would lean against significant addition of detail. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You and welcome templates
Don't follow me round - it is because of you and others like you that I have moved along so I don't want or need your welcome templates. Your posting of one on a talkpage clearly labeled as mine was just taking the piss and childish. Stay off any talkpage that I label as mine. - Your attitude in adding a welcome template in the manner of pissing to a talkpage with a retired template on it shows you for the person you really are. Youreallycan (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I suppose I should have looked for an unwelcome template. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, [F/f]or someone with such an interest in BLPs you show remarkably little interest in LPs. BTW, I don't understand why you'd get a new account only to slap retired on it, and then return to the drama board immediately, but soit. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, because there might be a misunderstanding. I deleted your three comments by accident, and they got labelled as vandalism. They were certainly not, & I immediately restored them. And replied; though we disagree, I certainly intended no negative implications about what you said. If you think it worth rev del, that's fine with me, but I'm not supposed to rev del my own errors. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- no worries, I hadn't noticed, and in any event I've made similar slips myself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding what can be interpretated as opinionated attacking headers in relation to a living subject of a wikipedia article. Youreallycan (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert to a npov blp compliant header or I will be forced to report you. Youreallycan (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Careful with those Cracker Barrel deletions, you're generating cite errors by orphaning references. 28bytes (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bot that fixes that, isn't there? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is, but I'm not sure how often it runs. 28bytes (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty quick -- let's give it a couple of hours, anyway. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
my username
Hi I would appreciate it if you just refer to me by my current username, my previous username is quite easily visible and users are allowed ot drop a username without people continuing to refer to their old username. If you object to my request, would you please explain why if you do, thanks . Youreallycan 17:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Santorum merger
You suggested I not tag the articles until there is a discussion but there can't be a discussion until the articles are tagged (that's why there's a "discuss" link on the tag). Please don't remove the tags until the discussion has occurred. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true -- there's nothing preventing initiation of a talk page section and then adding a tag later. People sometimes add a tag without starting a discussion -- that's what I was seeing. I won't remove it again, but I will insist that you link the previous discussions, and again I think you're wasting your time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, my point though is it's not necessary for there to be a discussion before a merger tag since the function of that tag is to prompt a discussion. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nomoskedasticity. You have new messages at WWB Too's talk page. Message added 22:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
I have replied. WWB Too (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Altschuler page
Any reason why you restored a NPOV noncompliant post on Randy Altschuler's page? The offending section was posted by a user who was active for all of two days in the heat of a 2010 campaign.
The "source" cited merely quotes the press release of the opposition candidate, and the user Brookster22 is clearly a sockpuppet for an opposing candidate. Whatever happend to enforcement of WP:SELFPUB in that case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.13.27 (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss how to edit an article at the article talk page. Anyway a newspaper article is not SELFPUB. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Santorum
I know it was a while ago, but I wanted to compliment your great re-edit. I should have thought of that. --Bertrc (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed your changes on the Full Sail University article, thank you for your contributions. As you may have noticed, the edits made by Hallows_AG were based on the proposed revisions found in User:Tylergarner/sandbox. I have two minor edit suggestions for the article, which I have bulleted below.
In the "Academics: Online Programs" section, the phrase "Macintosh-based" is outdated. A proposed change would be to "
Mac OS X
-based".
Do you think that it would be fair to remove citation 45, as it does not mention Full Sail University?
Both changes seem okay, though I'm less keen on the second one. The InsideHigherEd article is a good one for the general point. If it were the only one for the point about this particular university, then we would probably want to remove that sentence as insufficiently verified -- but I think it's a useful reference here, in a supplementary role. BTW, best to discuss the article on its talk page, not here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just wanted to follow up and thank you for your assistance earlier. I've proposed a revision to the History section of this article here but have not yet received a response, would you be willing to review? --Tylergarner (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RfC
Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the
Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. Be——Critical 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:BLPN
Since we are discussing an issue under
WP:BLP, it is appropriate that the content be not inserted back into the article again until a reasonable time has elapsed after discussion. The burden of proof lies clearly on those who insert the content. Please revert yourself, and I will be happy to let the picture stay after a reasonable time has elapsed post-discussion. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 17:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The burden of proof is satisfied by the responses to the BLPN thread that you started. You started the thread, you've had feedback -- now live with it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G'day
I'm in Australia but I've spent a fair bit of time in the UK. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay -- happy to know that I was wrong. It just makes for a puzzle that I hadn't expected. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit reversion at Rick Santorum
That certainly was a bad revert and I didn't do it intentionally but was done mistakenly. Sorry for that! --SMSTalk 21:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled at your revert of my edit, which you called "slow-motion edit warring" and "rejected" - I wasn't aware that there had been previous conflict over any attempts to consolidate all of Santorum's positions on LGBT and women's issues into one section. Could you direct me to such edits and/or discussion? (Also confused at your removal of the link to and paragraph on the creation of the neologism - that, if anything, would seem to be the rejected edit.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to revert you (my edit summary was directed at someone else), and I'm totally puzzled by the way those edits went. I was attempt to restore something deleted by another editor -- and what really makes me puzzled is that when I entered the edit box the text I was seeking to restore wasn't there. As I'm sure you've seen by now, I have reverted myself, and I apologize for the implication that you saw in my edit summary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you were trying to restore the material that Dominus Vobisdu had already restored? Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename at
Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in
an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be——Critical 22:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Re: mail
Regarding this, I haven't received any e-mail from you. Did you intend it for me or another user? Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Just got it. :) Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited
Pathan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject
.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sticking up for me there. Many a serious point can be made using humour, I like to think.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem -- people taking themselves far too seriously around here at times... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain what has caused you to make this unnecessary and pointed comment?-The Gnome (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing "caused" me to make it -- I chose to make it. There's a merge discussion that hasn't even been closed yet, though it's obvious how it is going to be closed. There have been a number of previous merge discussions, all with the same outcome. Taking it to DR -- instead of accepting that the community has repeatedly expressed a clear view on the matter -- is forum-shopping. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the first time that multiple RfC's have been conducted in Wikipedia. Certainly, not everyone of them is "forum shopping". As a matter of fact, it was you who asked that the matter be "closed". So, I chose, instead of declaring victory for one side or the other and closing the matter then and there, to take this to Dispute Resolution. It's part of the way Wikipedia works, I think. Yet to you it is "forum shopping" and moreover an "obvious" one. At the very least, this show empathy and prejudice: I already clarified to you that this is the first (and probably wretched last) I'm involved in this issue.
I looked at your input in a lot of discussions with other Wiki editors, and it's clear you are prone to be brusque and impolite, often attacking the other party in personal terms. Perhaps, you could take this as the friendly, constructive and totally detached observation that it is and you do something about it. Cheers, The Gnome (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I'm confused -- I showed "empathy", but I'm "impolite"? Anyway -- if you think my telling you that you were forum-shopping is inappropriate, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. More generally, you say "brusque and impolite" -- but I say forthright and blunt. I appreciate the offer of friendly and constructive observations, but in fact it's quite common to have "robust exchanges" on Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Thanks for the message. The sad thing is that I made sure that he was clearly informed about his 3rr. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he had informed me before you did. I didn't notice it because he added it up in another section. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
When I wrote "per talk", I meant "see talk". Will be more precise next time, thanks. —
I don't see how that's any different. The talk page doesn't establish consensus for the edit. You've mentioned on the talkpage why you think it's better -- but the only case you can make for the edit is that you think it's better. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it, but if you want to make a point you'll have to make it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elsevier
Discussion about Elsevier's page on wikipedia
Bonjour,
I was much too busy until now to have time to answer you.
On the page 'Elsevier' of Wikipedia you can read:
'Elsevier employs more than 7,000 people in over 70 offices across 24 countries. In addition, there are 7,000 journal editors, 70,000 editorial board members, 300,000 reviewers and 600,000 authors for its publications.'
On February 15th I added after publication the important precision:
(all of them, besides rare exceptions, perform that work without being paid by Elsevier).
Your arguments were:
(Unsourced, and wrong anyway Elsevier pays its editors, board members and reviewers get reductions on books and such (and their numbers put the number of boycott signatories rather nicely in perspective...).
I do not agree with your statement. I am member of the editorial board of the journal 'Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis' (ACHA) since 1993 when we created this mathematical journal with Academic Press which then moved to Elsevier when it bought Academic Press in 2000. Incidently, ACHA was created by the group of scientists who developed wavelet theory. I would like to testify that I have never been paid by Elsevier, neither have any reduction on books. The only 'priviledge' members of the editorial board get is a free copy of the journal, that technically makes sense since we need to follow what is published in ACHA (while our academic institutions have not all suscribe to get it). Last week Ingrid Daubechies, one of the three chief editor of ACHA signed the petition 'The cost of knowledge', resigned and publicly mentionned that she has never been paid by Elsevier. I have been associate editor in two other mathematical journals and in 40 years of career I have only recieved a mug from SIAM (Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics) to thank me when I left the editorial board.
Let us consider the figures given on wikipedia:
'In addition, there are 7,000 journal editors, 70,000 editorial board members, 300,000 reviewers and 600,000 authors for its publications. The company publishes 2,000 journals and 20,000 books [1]'. Note that in reference [1] those 977 000 persons are mentionned as 'partners'. Let us now assume that for each of those 2000 journals one chief editor is paid by Elsevier (I have no proof of this but I can ask the three chief editors of ACHA), this would make 2000 paid editors, i.e., 0.2% of the scientists working for Elsevier. This is what I mean by 'rare exceptions'. After you discarded my addition, I put it back with 'few exceptions' hoping to please you better, but you removed it again. I have talked to biologists, physicists and chemists who confirmed me that in their field too all those scientists are not paid by Elsevier (besides the case of some one who has been running a chemistry journal for 31 years and who recognized receiving money from Elsevier).
My point in adding the sentence you have discarded is that Elsevier never explain that. No mention of this is made in reference [1]. If you are an academic scientist you will certainly understand why we think this is a problem.
I have been asked by CNRS to write a recommendation concerning relations between researchers and publishers that you can download from http://wavelets.ens.fr in 'Publications' paper n° 316.
Looking forward to read your answer,
Best regards,
Marie Farge,
Directrice de Recherche CNRS
__________________________________________________________________________
Ecole Normale Supérieure,
24, rue Lhomond,
75231 Paris Cedex 5.
I evidently misunderstood, and I apologize. Now you can piss off. In future, if it looks like someone made an error, perhaps you can raise it as an inquiry, rather than immediately accusing someone of lying. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In future, if it looks like someone made an error, perhaps you can politely correct them, rather than telling them to piss off.
As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss contested edits on the talk page, not in our edit summaries?
You added a {{dubious}} tag. Your explanation for this dubious tag, such as it was, was in your edit summary.
I have two requests of you.
First, could you please stop solely providing explanations for controversial edits in your edit summaries? This practice is an unnecessary trigger to edit-warring, as someone who disagrees with you is going to be tempted to respond with an edit summary of their own, saying so -- and that will require them reverting you. Really, reading the discussion of editorial issues should not require a reader to look at both the article's talk page -- and the article's contribution history, to see the edit summaries. Reconciling which edit summaries were responses to which substantive comments in the talk page is an unnecessary burden. If the explanation for the edit is more than a phrase, or a link to a policy page or previous discussion, it really belongs on the talk page, not in the edit summary. If the edit or explanation is controversial, the explanation really belongs on the talk page.
I am sorry the documentation for the {{
Talk:Sajeel Shahid#Guilt by association?
. Of course you would also have the responsibility to have created a subsection entitled "Guilt by association?" -- but you should already have done that -- rather than follow a practice that is a trigger to edit-warring.
I request you try your best to avoid leaving edit summaries that could serve to trigger edit warring, in so far as you are able. I request that when you use the {{dubious}} tag, you use it in a manner where the "discuss" link takes the reader to an actual discussion of your concern.
Thanks!
Yours for more collegial collaboration... Geo Swan (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I do see the point about the "dubious" tag -- though I think it's also pretty obvious that the sentence was a mess. However, as per
WP:BURDEN it's pretty clear that starting a discussion is something to be started by the editor who wants to add/restore material. While I agree that talk-page discussion is a good thing, it is often appropriate for deletions to be done without it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
I understand that Epstein's convictions are serious but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, with a neutral point of view. I, along with many others, feel that there is definitely a biased agenda to portraying Epstein as just a criminal. He is more than that, so it should cover all aspects that are worthy. The Program for Evolutionary Dynamics needs to be defined and explained because it was the FIRST acamdemic group that focused on quantifying evolution. It is also the first program in the world that established the mathematic quantification of the in vivo kinetics of a human cancer. To say, that one should not put in a definition and just rely on the reference link is not in line with encyclopedic reporting or any reporting for that matter. The Program for Evolutionary Dynamics is not a household name like the Bible or the Eiffel Tower, so it needs a defining line, especially for what it accomplished in the field of cancer. Why would you want to omit this? If I were to just refer to the Epic of Gilgamesh, noone would know what I was writing about unless I identified it as the first known novel in history. I wouldn't expect the reader to have to look up the reference to understand what is going on. I look forward to your response and hope that I won't just be stone walled by a cabal of so-called editors who really just have their own agenda to push.
I am also very troubled by leading a BLP article with a mug shot, when there are other salient aspects to the person. This is truly biased in my opinion and Wikipedia is very conservative about using mug shots. Al Pacino and many other famous people have mug shots from crimianl activity ranging from prostitution, underage girls, drugs etc but the mug is not a lead photo because of the other important aspects to that person.
Please consider and get back to me.
Thank you, turvillTurvill (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but you're not optimistic on that score (I might just be a "so-called editor")?? The
WP:TOPIC point stands, and the right way to deal with the issue you raise is to consider whether it makes sense to have a separate article on the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics (or perhaps to put the relevant material into the article on Harvard). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Full Sail University
Hello, you may remember me from our prior discussion here. I've proposed a revision to the History section of the Full Sail University article here but have not yet received a response on the Talk page or on Hallows AG talk page since posting on February 17, would you be willing to review? --Tylergarner (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken this one off my watchlist, in an attempt to cut down on time spent here. You might try a visit here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey Epstein article
money laundering is not mentioned in ANY of the sources given. So I would like too remove it because it is libel. This is a serious accusation and needs to be sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turvill (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response from Turville Re: Epstein article
Hello, thank you for your posts and for adjusting the mug shot to the more appropriate location. I am not as claimed, a pr crony for Jeffrey Epstein. I do though come from a science journalist background, had heard of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, and when I came across this article I was quite taken by the lob-sided presentation of this piece. It struck me immediately as slanderous vs. having a neutral point of view. MONEY LAUNDERING: the link that was added to back this, does not connect through. That is extremely problematic given that this is in the lead of the piece and libel if not properly sourced. I googled money laundering and Jeffrey Epstein and found the article url that mentions it but this is what I found, and I quote: "Yet a source tells The Daily Beast that Epstein’s legal troubles may not be over. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT, as an outgrowth of the 2007 Florida investigation, federal investigators are now looking into allegations of money laundering and other financial misdeeds. Villafana notes at the end of her letter to Lefkowitz: “You accuse me of broadening the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting business to the investigation. Again, I consulted with the Justice Department’s Money Laundering Section about my analysis...the duty officer agreed with my analysis.”
Something being "possible" in the press is not the same as something that actually "is" as claimed in the lead of the article. And just because the duty office agreed with the analysis is not evidence that money laundering is under investigation. So, so far the lead is misleading and false. Also, I think it would show a biased point of view if it were stated in the lead of the article that he "may be" under investigation for money laundering. We should just stick to the facts. Unless you can find an article that confirms that he IS under investigation for money laundering, I think it should be removed. PROGRAM for EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS: this was entirely established from Jeffrey Epstein's $30 million, as was the research that was the first to mathematically quantify the in vivo kinetics of human cancer cells. That was a major achievement in the field of cancer and I think it should be allowed back into the article.
Thank you for your thoughts. PS. I didn't use this talk page because I simply overlooked it and so went to your individual talk pages instead. I agree that this is a better forum, so long as it is a venue that editors look at. my best, Turville50.74.171.70 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply
Hello, Nomoskedasticity. You have new messages at Tvoz's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please don't alter my comments as you did in this diff - Please explain why you did that? Youreallycan 16:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't alter anything, certainly not by design -- it's probably an edit conflict. If you could write in proper sentences the first time and cease the endless editing of your own comments this sort of thing would probably happen less. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, Nomoskedasticity. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for taking a look at the article. I have left some comments and questions for you on the talk page (Talk:Gabriel_Cousens#Recent_edits). Cheers, Ocaasit | c 11:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted this edit. "Supported"--possibly. But the sources are terrible, and WP articles, certainly BLPs shouldn't have "Reputation" sections whose sole intent is to puff up the subject. I'm surprised you think they should--I'm also surprised you didn't see that the decent references were brought into biography section. And I'll grant you "American Jews", BTW--thanks for restoring that. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomoskedasticity,
I made changes to the page of University Bible Fellowship because there were many unbiased facts about it. I wanted to improve the page, for University Bible Fellowship has changed throughout the years. The Controversy content was intolerant and prejudiced. I do not think that removing the Controversy content is considered vandalism; I was trying to improve the encyclopedia with a good-faith effort. I hope you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inesuh1012 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3rr
I would sincere appreciate your take on it and the matter at hand, I believe more independent contributors to the article will make it better quality and more accurate. Furthermore I would like to know more about 3rr and how it applies to the edits at pink slime and whether reverting content removal or simple semantic changes count as reverts or simple incubational progress.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if I ask permission from the university's web developer, I could finally add those information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjmc28 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No -- the university's website exists mainly for the purpose of promoting the university, and so putting that text here violates
Its not promotion is it? They were mainly historical details, that is if you even bothered to read before you decided to delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjmc28 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History told from the point of view of the institution. That material is already hosted by the university's website -- we don't need it here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are already photos on the page. If you think there's a need for more, then make a case on the article's talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough in my opinion. Would you please be kind enough to direct me how to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjmc28 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- I don't work with photos and don't know the relevant policies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Nomoskedasticity. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated
DR goes to Wikimania! 11:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Your claim that I am SMD
Please explain your use of the tag to describe me as SMD - seriously mentally deficient? I note you are continuing to follow and revert my contributions, you make a single edit to revert me, unless you are focusing on my contributions there is no explanation and as you have been in dispute with me continually for more than a year now - would you be prepared to work a voluntary topic ban between you and me? Anyway - please do stop attacking me with assertions of medical problems or low intelligence and all the other snide comments you make about me in your reverting edit summaries. - diffYoureallycan 19:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This message actually makes me a bit sad. SMD = Scott MacDonald. Really, this should have been obvious. The fact that you took it to mean "seriously mentally deficient" can only be taken as a sign of low self-esteem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm -- so much for the "recognize the error of judgement" part... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination of
Jill Kenton
for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kenton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
Please Include the Edits that happened to Ranina Reddy s page. I have explained the Reasons. Thanks .... Vithurgod (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't refer to me as darling - please use my username
Please don't refer to me as darling - diff - please use my username - I have repeatedly asked you in good faith to back off and offered a interaction ban between us - At this point I am collecting evidence of your undue association with me and your long term campaign to demean me - I request you to stay away from me in future unless totally necessary - Youreallycan 20:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating use of "undue" -- I don't think I quite get it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from reopening a closed community discussion
The RfC is a community discussion. The most basic rule governing the discussion was that it had a limited time frame and would close at a certain point. As a community discussion it is up to us, the community to police ourselves. Anthony has every right to enforce the rules of the discussion. You have no right to circumvent them. I have reverted you and expect you to stop. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you have deleted my edited section. As you may have seen, what I wrote came from the league tables and are surely acceptable as resources/references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjmc28 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too much commentary ("best", "most improved", etc.). Get to know
Okay. I will amend the so-called "commentaries". Thank you for the reminder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjmc28 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was aware of 3RR, but thank you anyway for the notification. I'd suppose you're aware that there's a limited 3RR exemption for BLP violations. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way you're going to make the BLP exemption argument work on that one. You could take your chances, I suppose -- but if you keep reverting I'll take it to 3RRN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G Osbourne
Please don't replace the user Iloveandrea's version of the biography it is more or less attacking - have a read of his version and you will see, ... content like - Osborne suffered ridicule for his Budget 2012 pasty tax.[43] - NPOV? If there are additions of any value between his contributions I will try to replace them or you can also help - the user previously edited the article to a similar opinionated position but I defended it then but the user returned to it and I missed the alterations. Youreallycan 19:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way I'm going to support reverting >4 months of editing by 17 different editors. I'm not endorsing that editor's version -- but I don't think yours can be endorsed either. Oh, and you're beyond 3RR on that article already. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Save me from these people
I have a rather intellectually limited, but very eager, bunch of people on my case. I need to adjust tone in some of my stuff, but they are just cutting out entire sections of stuff by sticking up a POV tag (as if that self-evidently justifies their every action). Can you keep an eye on Project Merlin, George Osborne, and Mervyn King? I can't even get cites from the Financial Times past this lot, it's just ridiculous. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nomas! I noticed that imagebot removed one of the photo which was File:Goulston street law building.jpg. I left a note on its page when it was put for deletion that I got that from our department's official facebook page. I have the permission of the copyright holder of the photo who took it as he was a personal friend of mine. Would it be possible to revert that photo back? Thank you, as always. --Kjmc28 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies -- I know very little about policy and how-to on photos here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another following revert
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
diff - reverting a dispute that I am involved in that you have no prior contribution to - another one for my list - you are repeatedly doing this - can you please just avoid doing such, if there is an issue there are plenty of uninvolved users that will jump in without you a user that has been in dispute with me for over two years now and that I have repeatedly asked for a voluntary interaction ban - please stop - your repeatedly jumping in to revert my contributions leaves me with a feeling of stalking and harassment - Youreallycan 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you agree that you have been in dispute with me for over two years? Do you dispute that you are following my edit history and reverting me at many locations, often when you had no prior involvement in the discussion or issue? - Youreallycan 19:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FFS , is not discussion - Can you answer this question please - Do you agree that you have been in dispute with me for over two years? Do you dispute that you are following my edit history and reverting me at many locations, often when you had no prior involvement in the discussion or issue? - Youreallycan
Let's try again. Look at the edit summary. The fact that you're wrong on this one is a hint that you're wrong in your more general assertion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please answer my question - Do you agree that you have been in dispute with me for over two years? Do you dispute that you are following my edit history and reverting me at many locations, often when you had no prior involvement in the discussion or issue? If you continue to refuse to answer this question I am unable to attempt dispute resolution with you. - Youreallycan 20:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think its pretty clear from an uninvolved arbitrary position that you have not answered my question and that I tried to discuss my issues with you and the attempt failed - Youreallycan 20:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Though you may delete this too, Youreallycan responded to your "Uninvolved?!!" comment above before you deleted it and sealed it off like that's all there was. Colton Cosmic (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, he added it after I had closed the thread -- not that it has anything to do with you (oh, I get it -- you're upset about being warned after all for edit-warring). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's as much a warning as those "undoubted" reverts you went on about were "undoubted." Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued focus on me - don't you get it?
You have commented again in a personal way about me at the BLPN - diff - don't you get it that I am feeling harassed and bullied by your patterns in regards to me? I am unable to contribute or to enjoy my volunteering here - please stop it, just take me off your watchlist or say to yourself, hey he's getting upset I will leave him alone, and allow others to comment about me if needed. Youreallycan 13:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I were following your contribs, you might have a reason to complain. But I'm not, and you don't. I'm commenting on central noticeboards and on articles discussed there. This is normal. It seems to me that you want a free pass -- if someone doesn't agree with you, you want them not to say anything. That's a recipe for disappointment here, seems to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nomoskedasticity. You have new messages at Arcandam's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
User talk:AndyTheGrump
I notice your three recent edits there. What would you say you were trying to achieve there? --John (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see two* in my top 500 contribs; the first suggests (via a question to you) that he has already crossed a line (any thoughts?), the second corrects a misimpression held by another editor. (*Did you perhaps notice that my edits were twice deleted by a different editor? It ought to have been sufficient for me to add them only once.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see four, your two comments and then two restorations of them when others had removed them. Clearly if I thought Andy had crossed a line I would have said so or just blocked him, so what was the point of asking me, on his talk page, a question to which the answer was so obvious? What, again, were you trying to achieve? --John (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to suggest a reconsideration, i.e., when someone gets to "moronic little turd" (or whatever it was) they've already crossed the line. I'm amazed that others think this isn't so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the next time you are amazed by one of my communications I would be grateful if you could communicate this to me directly rather than on the user talk page of someone who is clearly already upset. I would also appreciate it if you could refrain from edit-warring; if someone removes comments like the ones you made, please just leave them removed or take it up with the remover. Comments like the ones you made could look like
inflammatory ones. Thanks for your understanding. --John (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I did take it up with the remover, who per
WP:TPO was clearly in the wrong. Edit-warring is not a relevant description for my own actions there, though perhaps a word with Arcandam is in order on that score. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I may well speak to Arcandam, but at the moment I am speaking to you. Your first and second restorations of your comments when they had been removed by Arcandam constitute edit-warring on your part. You misunderstand
WP:TPO; it specifically allows the removal of material of the type you added then twice restored. Please do not do this again. --John (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
If that's the way you perceive it, then I'll expect you not to mind if I remove Andy's personal attacks. I also reject your conclusion that my posts were inappropriate -- particularly after I've explained their nature in response to your questions above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you and Andy avoid each other as this interaction hasn't been very fruitful. If I see you repeating this sort of behaviour at any location (baiting then edit-warring to restore the comments) you can expect to be blocked. You would then be free to appeal using the unblock procedure. I would really hope that this wouldn't become necessary. All the best, --John (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the impression you don't like it when people disagree with you. Not a great characteristic in an admin, I figure. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bellesiles
Re your 'any hope that' question at a certain noticeboard. I was going to reply with something intentionally vague like "The situation will become clear by the end of the day." then decided to quietly speak over here. If you browse a certain contrib history you might see something...relevant. You may wish to discreetly undo the edit where you commented, since by the end of the day things will have progressed. Do hope you follow the slightly cryptic comment. :) --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question: Yes there are socks. However, the extent of socking is larger and more complicated than it appears. It is not just the obvious ones.
I already opened an SPI case yesterday on two of them—this one, and at the time had suspicions further accounts were involved. Since I don't do unevidenced accusations, I opened with those 2 obvious ducks at the time. After submitting I found definitive evidence on the wider sock farm & sockmaster. It was late by then, so I left a note on the report asking it be held open and not acted upon and that I would add information after some sleep. As I'm sure you can appreciate, sockpuppet investigation reports are closed if clear evidence is not provided, and it can take time to put that together in more complicated cases. I will complete and submit it later today.
The reason I made the suggestion above is because I didn't want to telegraph it too widely, per the guidance at SPI "(Notification is not mandatory, and in some cases may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement)". By "if you browse a certain contrib history" I meant click through to my contribs so you would see the report, which would answer your question.
In retrospect the way I wrote my first comment was not ideal. My apologies. I hope that clears up the confusion. Regards, 92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's of interest: I submitted the spi report. I'll get off your page now. Best, --92.6.200.56 (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of a sheer penchant for drivel, I've penned an essay on BLP noteworthiness. I don't know what I expect from having done so. But I thought I'd share it with you because you're a regular BLP contributor, and I value your understanding of current policy and guidelines, as well as you opinion of if and how they might be improved. If you don't have time or interest, no hard feelings. In fact, if you think I'm being wrongheaded, please leave a comment to that effect. All the best. JFHJr (㊟) 10:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomo, looks like paulineyoo can't keep her hands off the UBF page and is making unexplained edits again. Might this page be locked again? Bkarcher (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not by me (I'm not an admin), and not for only that. I've reverted it for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Pauline is from the Toronto Canada area and appears to be removing Canada-related material for some reason (unless someone is impersonating her). I invited her to talk about it instead of directly removing material.Bkarcher (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Nomoskedasticity, here, you removed pejorative information from a BLP, but here, you restored pejorative information. The Warren text was supported by a major newspaper as the source, while the VanderSloot information seems to be less robustly sourced. Could you please explain the difference in your approaches to those two articles? Cla68 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a fascinating question, whatever could you be getting at. However since I doubt you accept the premises that would make it sensible, I'm going to skip the opportunity for this conversation (ta, though). If there's something to be discussed about how to edit an article, the usual venue will do. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Please self-revert your deletion by redirect. cheers. Collect (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snide comment on my talk page
The following comment was placed on my talk page by you:
You need to learn about
Since I have already been given notice about the 3rr by two other editors. There was no need for the warning. Also, the tone of your comment was snide. Please do not make snide comments. Assume good faith. There is no need for your snide comments. Your snide comments will not stop me from editing the Elizabeth Warren article.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ah -- yes, my apologies -- there was no need for me to warn you, you already had a warning at an earlier point. Which makes the continued editing, um, puzzling -- as is your declaration of intent to carry on. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accidental rollback
Uh wow sorry -- I have no memory of making that edit and my browser history doesn't even show me viewing that page last night. I must have accidentally clicked on the rollback button from my watchlist and not noticed it. Feel free to look carefully at my past contributions -- I only use rollback in cases of obvious vandalism or large scale blanking without edit summaries. Sorry again, a13ean (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas
More than once, you've removed '
Talk:List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas#RfC: Warren's claim "factually disproved"?. --→gab24dotgrab← 14:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Nova edit
Dear Nomoskedasticity
I do not want to be lacking politeness but I will undo your changes but will integrate your criticism of my earlier version today into a new version, which, I hope finds your consent. best wishes user: weber— Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz weber (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kitty101423
No, we don't do indef blocks for edit warring unless the account has a long history of warring and being blocked for the same (and anyway that would be done only after a discussion at WP:ANI or WP:AN), and a single edit after an edit warring block doesn't by itself warrant even a short block for edit warring. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nomoskedasticity. This is just to let you know, I have added a note to
WP:ANI. My own feeling is that Kitty's behaviour hasn't changed in two years and I don't think short blocks are going to achieve much. Unfortunately her uncooperative behaviour has tended to be successful. In the past, she has got her own way simply by leaving sufficiently long gaps between reverts and waiting for other editors to lose interest. --Lo2u(T • C) 12:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
(I have been around here long enough to know, but I guess I do not. Is a lengthy youtube of his prayer not acceptable? The video is his prayer from start to end with no edits. I admit I felt fairly dumb trying to figure out how to make it sound scholarly.)) Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at
WP:BLPPRIMARY. At the very least, you'll need to provide a link to the video in question, so that it can be evaluated. It is very likely a primary source, and so even though youtube videos are sometimes acceptable it is likely not a suitable source on its own in this instance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
My Saudi internet is going up and down like C S Lewis' dolphin. I deeply appreciate your help and will give this my full focus in about 12 hours when I am my office. I appreciate any guidance you might have. I realize we must be very careful with BLPs. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLP Barnstar
The BLP Barnstar
For your work on BLPs, especially your neutrality and referencing of controversial subjects 86.29.149.141 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to Michael Roach page
Thanks for the note. The reason I made the change that you reverted is that I had deleted the text for which that reference was added. The reference is still used elsewhere in the article, but is no longer relevant to the particular sentence from which I deleted it. I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your revert. It's not a big deal to me, and I don't intend to pursue it further if you disagree, but I hope my edit makes more sense to you now that I've explained it. I would indeed prefer to avoid editing this article entirely, but it seems that edits to it are almost never from NPOV, so I do my best to make my edits neutral, and ask for help when I am not sure what to do, as you might have seen a month ago when the Ian Thorson story broke, on the BLP web page, after a particularly egregious bit of coatracking. Abhayakara (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My edits (the ones you reverted) were not coatracking. I intend to be rigorous about the COI issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say your edits were coatracking; the coatracking occurred, as I said, about a month ago when the story about Ian broke. I was referring specifically to the change I made that you reverted. The reference no longer makes sense there, because there's no text sourced there from that reference. The same reference is used elsewhere in the article, so removing the obsolete duplicate reference does not prevent anyone from seeing the reference. As to your intention of rigor about COI, I'm not sure what to say. Are you proposing that my edits are not NPOV? If so, specifics would be helpful. Simply pointing out the potential for COI here is unnecessary—I have been completely above the board about being a student of Geshe Michael, and have specifically asked in cases where I couldn't be certain an edit I thought was necessary was NPOV. Abhayakara (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is text that is sourced from that reference. But I've made it more accurate. I'm pleased that you agree my edits weren't coatracking, but them I'm puzzled as to why you deleted them. I will wait to see the opinions of other editors before re-adding that sentence. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies—I hadn't noticed that the text that was recently re-added about Ian Thorson's death was done by you. That was coatracking, so I misspoke. I was more focused on your revert of the cleanup I had just done. Abhayakara (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take a closer look at
WP:COATRACK. What you're missing is right in the first paragraph. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not seeing it. Care to elucidate? Abhayakara (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats".' A brief passage about Thorson does not obscure anything about Roach. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IOW, any statement about anyone in an article about another person, which statement serves to imply something about the subject of the article, which implication is not substantiated by the source, is okay as long as it isn't the entire article. It's hard to believe that that's what that sentence means. Abhayakara (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you rightly point out that we ought not to talk about this on the Geshe Michael talk page, I will mention it here instead. Your work on stopping edit warring and POV pushing is appreciated, and your thoughtful consideration of research I've done is as well. However, the reason I say that you have a clear POV is that your edits seem to reflect this. You seem to strongly favor text that rejects the subject's view of what he or she is doing in favor of the outsider's view.
So for instance your first edit to the Geshe Michael page was to get rid of the Spiritual Partner head and replace it with a Marriage head. Geshe Michael describes his relationship with Christie as a spiritual partnership, and the two of them taught spiritual partnership classes for many years. The focus of these classes was on how people could find partners or keep their partners by treating others well—for instance, going to visit lonely old people in nursing homes to create the karma to not be lonely. So this is a really major theme in his life and his teaching.
Another theme is honoring his Christian heritage, which he thinks doesn't conflict with his Buddhist practice. Many of the spiritual partnership talks occurred in churches, and he's worked with a number of Catholic and Episcopalian priests to bring a clear understanding of emptiness and karma to Christian teachings. As you can see in the picture of Geshe Michael and Christie in front of the yurt at Diamond Mountain in the earlier NY Times article, he wore a wedding ring. So Geshe Michael's position on the marriage is quite clear: it was a spiritual partnership. Calling it a marriage, even though they were married, obscures a key focus of his teaching, which is that every marriage can be a spiritual partnership.
You added back the text about going to clubs in New York, which had been removed as a result of a BLPN consultation a year ago. You then updated the text to inappropriately tie the divorce to the clubbing text, which seems to me to read very negatively. You made quite a few edits following this one that seemed to have a similar POV.
I do appreciate that you are trying to be neutral, and to follow wikipedia policy, and that you do respond to criticism. But I also see a strong POV in the edits that you have made that weren't in response to my research, and I wish you would reflect on this a bit rather than simply defending your honor. Abhayakara (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Pearson
There's some weird editing going on at Roger Pearson. I am thinking a protection would be in order.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yep -- I agree, very strange, and it will need semi-protection if it continues. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were going to take it to an admin. You didn't. I wonder why not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to take it to ANI, but before that drama, I wanted to try to settle it here first, isn't that how it works?. I would still ask if you would be willing to find an uninvolved admin to intervene and help us solve this disagreement without going to ANI.--
Hi, just letting you know that I've attempted to explain my Jerry Sandusky edit here. It's a bit rambling, I suppose, but I wanted to be fairly thorough. Best wishes, Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
edits to a biography
Thank you for reaching out to me. I am a new editor to Wikipedia and not likely to be a regular editor at all. I only stumbled into it yesterday when I was accessing the biography about Comstock for professional reasons. When I first went to the page it included robust information about her background that I found helpful. Then, when I went back to print it out that content was gone. I clicked around and read the "history" and couldn't really follow it all, but felt that some of what was being taken out or changed should be added back, as the arguments people were making seemed not to reflect what I know about how universities work. Also, I wanted to have the other information re-instated but I have no idea how to do that. I also have been printing out information on other senior academic leaders (again for professional reasons) but I didn't find any content changes or reasons to check history or try to do edits. I would like to have the information that I saw on Comstock's page when I first went to it. Can it be put back into the biography? Could you please respond to my talk page, as I am not sure I can find yours again. Hope that is not too much to ask. Midwest456 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody wants to escalate the conflict, and nobody wants to try to find a compromise and improve the article. Why are you taking sides and escalating the conflict?TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Roach
I've commented at the conflict of interest noticeboard regarding the issues with the Michael Roach page. I appreciate your voice in the matter. Vritti (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you -- that sort of response is exactly what I would expect most editors here to provide, and it's a puzzle that some have been taking a different view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2012
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Hi Nomoskedasticity,
There is a ton of superfluous language in the Solicitation of Prostitution section that needs to be cleaned up--many other editors have suggested this. So yes, I forgot to add commentary here.
However, RE; the science information, you don't get to unilaterly delete this. This is relevant information and I put in sources to back it up from the Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe and others. So you are not reverting what was there before.
I am going revert. Or at least, put the science stuff back in there.
If you have an issue with the substance, then address it on the article Talk Page as I am doing now. See article Talk Page, where I will post this.
He is not getting it at this point. And he saw the need to start a third thread on BLPN (I've since merged it into the original) about these edits, and named me as the problem editor, despite the fact that someone else put the word there in the first place.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested that he might not want to exceed 3 reverts on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's still insistent that I am to blame here, despite Manaus being the original editor who added that content. This is getting ridiculous.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't youreallycan tell you not to post on his talk page Nomoskedasticity? --KeithJTasca15 (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have commenced a reassessment of Pink slime at the GAR page here. I have flagged this also at the FAC page. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I was copy-editing the overview section of the article, there was an edit conflict, and I may have inadvertently restored information that you omitted per your most recent edit to the article. Just a heads up. I apologize if this occurred. Sincerely: Northamerica1000(talk) 22:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Referral to NPOV Noticeboard for review.
The Rubio spouse description and expansion of information on the immigration matter has been referred to the NPOV Noticeboard for review:
National and state/provincial/territorial legislators are deemed inherently notable. (One of my long-term projects is to improve the coverage of U.S. state legislators, especially in my own state of Wisconsin; I've created over a hundred so far, and improved many others; even did a nice little article on the guy who beat me for the Tennessee House in 1974 [with full disclosure of my COI, of course], as well as on the guy who preceded him and the guy who succeeded him.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough -- especially now that there's been some good work on the article and it's in much better shape. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, you're probably right
I haven't done a strict count on any specific edits I've made to Joe Paterno, and while I don't think I'm technically into 3RR, I think you're right that I should back off for a while on the article. Thank you for advising me. Qworty (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. There's so much traffic right now -- it's impossible to jump in and fix everything one perceives needs fixing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
I asked for editing advice, you shared freely. Good on ya! HuntClubJoe (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Roach
Greetings Nomoskedasticity. I understand your deletion of the Dalai Lama interview by Ron Gluckman on BLPSPS grounds .. given the reference I provided. The interview was properly published in Asiaweek as the cover story on May 10, 1996. This is the correct source. Do you want to put it back in the article, discuss or would you prefer I do it? http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/96/0510/index.html Regards. Vritti (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if it's published in a proper source, then go ahead and restore it with that source -- though perhaps try addressing Abhayakara's point on the talk page first. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of Sentence Re: Sandusky's Continued Abuse Until 2011
You had asked why I removed the sentence in the Joe Paterno article reading "Sandusky continued to sexually abuse children up until his arrest in 2011." The only source I see cited for this statement is the primary source of the grand jury report and there is no a reference in the grand jury report to abuse in 2011, 2010, or even earlier. If there is a source that can be cited I have no objection to it staying in, but unless there is a source I would be inclined to remove it again. Do you have any further views on this?Srj4000 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nomo, I reverted your most recent AN/I post as it erased a bunch of text below. Please try it again. Maybe you tried to resolve an edit conflict, I personally just swear and try again when that happens. Regards! Franamax (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay -- but I didn't erase anyone's text, all I did was paste my comment again when I got the edit conflict notice... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't looking over your shoulder (we only have funding for surveillance overflights so far ;) and I can't fully explain it - but in general I think it's not a good idea to try to work through edit conflicts on high-activity pages. It looks OK but there could be changes in completely different areas that you miss. Maybe it's partly related to the way editing is done by "section number" (e.g. §ion=6 for me in the address bar right now) normally, but the e/c resolver screen saves the entire page? I dunno, but certainly you did remove a bunch of text, and I'm certain too you didn't intend to do it. I've seen it happen often enough that I always copy my text before saving, and if I get an e/c I bail right out, reopen the page in another window, go to the section all over and edit again. It's a pain, but on the plus side it makes me look like I've been thinking things over carefully. ;) Cheers! Franamax (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Pickering
Please note that I have not been engaged in an edit war, rather that Bilby(talk) has been reverting referenced, topical additions and changes to the Larry Pickering article.
It is worth acknowledging that Bilby has been engaging in editing behaviour that has been called into question by other members of the community, particularly when the articles involve the Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
All of the claims made in the article on Pickering have been substantiated by reputable sources.
Should you wish to revert the article, I would request that you provide substantial proof regarding any claims that you may with to make against the veracity of any of the sources procvided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judas goat (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in
dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page
.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
You may be interested in this discussion. I'm notifying you because you participated in the first deletion discussion and/or the deletion review. LadyofShalott 16:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just seen your comments regarding vandalism on the Jacob Aungiers page. Curious as to why Jacob is using Wikipedia to present a CV, rather than accurate information? I believe I've made edits now in a less-biased format - please advise if not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellja2001 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3RR?
"Oh, and you're now at 3RR on this article." How do you figure that?
Seeking advice. Should I take the 'numbering' dispute to DRN? GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If necessary, sure. But my sense is that the other editor is going to run out of reverts soon. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True. I suspect he'll likely do as he did in May, wait everyone out for a few weeks, when things quiet down & then revert. This time (however), I'm keeping the article on my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I don't plan on putting it on my own watchlist, but please do let me know if it flares up again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how that happened, and I apologize for it. My only thought is that lately when my watchlist loads it seems to "jump" after it appears to have already finished loading -- so perhaps I clicked on rollback and did something I didn't intend to do. Again, my apologies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks for clarifying. You might check your "My contributions" page to see if you've done anything else you didn't mean to. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A.Raja
I have made a complaint/request in Biography of living persons Noticeboard, regarding A.Raja I haven't got any reply after since i posted on 17:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC). I reproduce here for your reference, please read it.
A. Raja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In biography of A.Raja, the section "2G Spectrum scandal" & "the Box" contains potentially libellous, such material is repeatedly inserted, it violates the BLP policies,
It's written in news style; of first-hand news reports on breaking stories; INCLUDED routine news reporting on things; breaking news are emphasized; these sources lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary.
not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion; Timely news subjects not suitable and therefore "is significantly NOT enough to be included in the biography of a person". Overall the sources and sentences are 'negative in tone', ' they appear to have been created to disparage the subject' & Materials clearly not added in good faith.
Editors The Discoverer & Anbu121 are repetadly inserting the materials, even after mentioning the violation of rules
WP:NOT#NEWS
WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER
WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS
WP:NOTDIARY
WP:NOTWHOSWHO
.
There is s seperate "2G spectrum section" , but still, the informations inserted are in excess than actual Biography, to Malign the person.
Keep an eye on the Editors & Please give protection status to this article.
I request & please you to take immediate action, i am waiting for your reply. Thistorian (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the claim of Synthesis, should the original version or the revised version of the LGBT Section be used in the article from henceforth—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
Because the original "LGBT issues" Section adversely comments on a Living Person, should that section be immediately replaced with the revised section—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
Should the Sources identified as faulty or not germane be eliminated from the list of References?
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Youreallycan and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
By any chance, did you save a copy of the edits on YRC's user talk page before they got oversighted last night? Please drop me an email if you did. Prioryman (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be very helpful, since you saw the edits in question, if you could describe their nature on AN/I and why you reverted them. It's understandable that some people are frustrated that they can't see the evidence but I think it would help if those who did see them could explain what they saw. Prioryman (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't save a copy, but I've now commented at ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About Epoka University
I am deleting or editing the content that you have insisting to add under epoka university as you claim "properly referenced" but your references are not proper.
The content of your references are contradicting with the university facts. And the references are not objective and containing claims which are not provable. It changes depending on the authors point of view.
Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afersoy (talk • contribs) 10:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to discuss on the article talk page (not here), and as the material comes with references you must gain agreement on the talk page prior to removing it. If you continue to delete it in the manner you have been using, you will be blocked (prevented from editing Wikipedia). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A request for arbitration in which you were named as a party has been declined.
For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OMICS Publishing Group wiki page editing
As per my knowledge we should include the history of the group as following
The Group, with the help of Human proteome organization initiated to start Open Access journal in proteomics at 6th Annual HUPO World Congress, South Korea in 2007
also contributed a paper to the 4th volume inaugural issue of this journal in 2011.
Negatives and positives about the published articles
One of the OMICS Group's journals, the Journal of Earth Science & Climatic Change, published a paper written by Otis D. Williams that theorized a formative connection among
One/two wiki editors are intentionally deleting the important sources of this article without proper reason.
Negative/positive credit should go to the publisher of the journals along with respective journal.
Please discuss how to edit an article on the article talk page, not on a user's talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comment
You and six other editors have been active in the discussions at
Why on earth would you give me a 3RR warning after two reversions? Why would you do so after making two reversions yourself? Bizarre. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The convention is to give the warning when an editor has made two reversions and is in danger of making a third. That's why "on earth" I decided to pass on a friendly tip to you. I don't believe the number of reversions I made has any bearing on the number of versions you had made. Not sure why you asked those two questions, but I assume they were asked in the spirit of friendship. Yours,
That's silly. Three reverts is not a violation of 3RR and so there's no "danger" in a third. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Comment and BLP Talk page
You made a good faith revert on the VanderSloot Talk page to remove RIR's comment about the RFC/U. The RFC directs unrelated comments to the appropriate Talk page:
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
I didn't want to blank RIR's content so I posted it in the proper section of the BLP's Talk page. Would you object to my restoring the section? Andrew (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really even figure out what it means. Perhaps it means something in context on the RfC page. But in its present form it simply looks out of place. What is the message that needs communicating on the talk page? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically it means "If it's not an official statement or an endorsement thereof, save it for the Talk page." I was moving a post by Rhode Island Red but it's not big deal if it isn't restored. I was just trying to follow the RFC's cryptically worded instructions. Andrew (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay -- but I still can't figure out what it was meant to do on the VanderSloot talk page... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's an odd place, but it was a response to a statement on the RFC, which for some reason are supposed to be on the Talk page. IMO they're still trying to figure out the RFC process. Andrew (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would make a lot more sense. I'll assume that the RFC template is written wrong and direct comments to the RFC talk page. Thanks. Andrew (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see the problem. I've fixed that link. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Andrew (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notification on WP:3RR
I would like to thank for notifying me about
WP:3RR in the case of editing Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky. I am aware of the provision. I forgot about it at that point and I must say I would have missed it if you were not there to notify. The provision indeed allows me have a rest of 24 hours from thinking about that article :). Thank you again. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 14:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
Hello, Nomoskedasticity. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Blustery day
" I think it's not bias in the sources we have to worry about here." C'mon, dude, my second home is San Francisco. Yours in rainbowdom,
I've restored the template you removed from User talk:8.22.56.48. That IP resolves to Stanford, California - it is on school grounds. I suspect you did it in good faith, but you're stretching it by removing the template completely if you disagree with it. Please don't remove it again. Toddst1 (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Stretching it"? It's not that I "disagreed" with it -- I simply thought it was inaccurate: there are parts of Stanford, California that are not on campus, and geolocate indicates an ISP different from the university. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - I wanted to bring your attention to something about this edit. While the article may not have qualified as a speedy deletion, the revert that you did re-introduced BLP violations into the article. For instance, there is now an unsourced claim that the BLP subject is "Widely disparaged by foreign press as being a con-man". Wikipedia's
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
With those things in mind, I urge you to modify the article so as to remove any violations of the BLP policy - by re-introducing them with a simple revert, I'm afraid that you're placing yourself in an awkward situation. I should be clear that this is not a directive from the Foundation or anything of the type (indeed, we have no role in policing of content, and are only involved in this article because of an off-wiki complaint that seeks to trigger the WP:OFFICE process), and you are free to do as you please, consistent with WP policies. I bring this to your attention only because I"m certain that you didn't notice that your actions reintroduced a violation of the policy. Best wishes, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the nature of my "awkward situation"? What sort of consequences might follow from my being in an "awkward situation"? Would someone who deleted the article as a response to the CSD10 nomination (even though it didn't qualify) be in an awkward situation for having done something inconsistent with WP policies? In short: your message might be intended as rather aggressive -- I can't quite tell (in part because of the apparently friendly tone), and if there's something that you are implying but not saying then perhaps you should say it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The apparently friendly tone is on purpose, because I genuinely don't intend to be adversarial. I'm not threatening any consequences, because I don't have any to dole out, even if I wanted to. As I said, the Foundation has no role in policing content. I'm telling you because I genuinely believe you to be of good faith, and that you probably didn't realize that there were BLP violations in the article. I honestly don't know what the WP community might do, but I do know that this community takes BLP very seriously, as does the Foundation. There are no direct consequences from the Foundation, we don't have that weapon to wield, and we don't want it. We believe that people of good intent will do the right thing and we'd rather appeal to that intent, which is what I was trying to do. I apologize if you felt in any way pressured or threatened, that wasn't my intent. A plain text reading of the words should demonstrate that I am truly just trying to call your attention to the fact that you may have inadvertently reintroduced BLP violations into the article, to give you the chance to either post it to WP:BLPN or take another action to get it cleaned up, since I know you wouldn't want to do that - because I believe in your good faith. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."
I have asked you previously and you have refused - as you still appear to be focusing on my contributions please reconsider and accept my offer? A voluntary
WP:Interaction ban would be a good resolution to our long term dispute - I have decided to request arbitration with you if you refuse - If you reject my offer, I am going to collect all your historic and recent diffs in regards to me here User:Youreallycan_/Nomoskedasticity - regards - Youreallycan 22:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I assume this has something to do with my reverting that edit to categories on Miliband? It's unfortunate that you see this as evidence of my being "focused" on you; that article has been on my watchlist for a long time. You seem to find it all upsetting, and I'm sorry for that, but I don't think it constitutes a reason to agree to an interaction ban. I do not consider myself in dispute with you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been in dispute with me for over two years - do you really want all the diffs and all the raise in disruption that will cause more than an IBan ? Please simply accept the long term dispute and agree voluntary now? Youreallycan 23:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dankof until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
Location (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Why
Am I involved into anything from you? --Hinatatalk 21:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should have a look at the history of articles before embarrassing yourself with a completely off the wall comment. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? --Hinatatalk 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It's bad she/he even edited the article in the first place. It's a classic conflict of interest. Anyway, I am highly confused you even replied to me in the first place, it's like out-of-place on someone who I did not even know until today. The subject of the article has to know that editing her or his article is against the rules. Also, I stand by my comments. --Hinatatalk 21:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SHE'S NOT EDITING THE BLOODY ARTICLE!! Certainly not in any recent time frame so that she needs to be instructed to "stop immediately". FFS... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He/she has. Go look up the article history. --Hinatatalk 22:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She. She. She removed the name of her spouse -- a perfectly appropriate edit, one that conforms entirely to BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He/she still violates the article, and I think a deletion should be in order because this article lacks notability. --Hinatatalk 22:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Violated?? Interesting choice of word. The only thing that's being "violated" here is Nusbacher's privacy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On top of it, it's a non-notable article as well. --Hinatatalk 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EDMC
Why did you throw out all of the edits to the EDMC page? All of the edits from today were fact-based, pure updating of company information, and simple cleanup of organization. Making the page current. How is this "Obvious Conflict of Interest?" Maggieluv (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You work for EDMC. You didn't just "update", you deleted stuff that had entirely proper sources -- and it's not hard to imagine why. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Bittar
Sorry, that SPA ive been correcting made changes before you and I reverted to their trash version plus on iPad!.--Nixie9 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i suspect Arbedit is the home account of COI account used from company ip last week--Nixie9 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, likely. You might want to be mindful of 3RR as well. In my opinion the last edit by ARBedit was not a problematic one and did not need to be reverted. Since you've now exceeded 3RR you might consider self-reverting. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the ham-handed edits, I was on an exercycle, on an iPad. I'd like to consider the edits a single rollback to the pre-vandalized version. I did not mean to wipe your intermediate tag, but the result was hopefully the best achievable option. I will address that tag today. Hopefully a 3RR review would let me slide under the COI/sockpuppet/vandalism exceptions! I appreciate your involvement, the 3 identities of this editor need to hear another voice besides mine. Cheers! --Nixie9 (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recently deceased are still covered by
WP:BLP
, read it.
Please note that articles about the recently deceased are covered under
That provision is intended to address sensitivities of relatives. There is no issue of that sort here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vargas Talk Page
How do I get consensus on one sentence if no one will discuss it? Everyone seems good at reverting and citing Wikipedia rules but I have yet to receive a constructive response. How long should I wait? If it is not on the page, what incentive do they have to respond?Griffy013 (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, there's no rush. We can discuss it after your block ends. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
can you explain why you reverted the removal of his reference as being a Filipino American as opposed to a Filipino? Please provide a citation, as he is not a citizen and his grandparents were naturalized.
There's more than enough evidence online, including the citation at the end of the sentence to take away the word American from the sentence. The article isn't correct. Perhaps it can be said, self described Filipino American?
You have to include evidence that he's American in some way.... as of now the article is intentionally misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A note to those interested in the current kerfuffle about Jewishess, particularly as it relates to Ed Miliband. There's all sorts of nonsense speculating about the motives of people who want him to be identified as Jewish; much of this is summarized as "Jew-tagging", a rather unsavory term. Here's my motivation: I am interested mainly in good arguments/reasons, and the reasons adduced by people who oppose me on this question are really quite poor. When I see a poor argument, I am often interested in explaining why it is poor. On this particular issue, it is a matter of scholarly competence: I have published in peer-reviewed journals on this issue and am quite confident in knowing what I'm talking about. I've been here long enough to know that scholars are usually treated poorly when editing Wikipedia on the basis of their own expertise -- we're all equal here, heh heh. So, fine -- except that it feeds my motivation to pursue the issue. I am by no means on a campaign to "tag" large numbers of BLP subjects as Jewish; again, my main impetus w/rt Miliband is that the arguments of some contributors here are so woefully misinformed. Nomoskedasticity (talk)
It might be nice to fellow scholars to provide some indication of the pertinent arguments in the relevant literature -- both those that agree with you and those which you believe to be worth consideration even though they reach different conclusions.MarkBernstein (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Swartz
Hey Nomo, I know you and yworo both have the best intentions regarding the BLP, self-identification of religion. Come to the talk page and let's discuss. Ocaasit | c 18:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: One, let's drop the personal attacks quick. Templates as well won't help.
It's an appropriate edit, so sure. Whether it is sufficient is another question. But it can be adopted because on its own terms it is an appropriate edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only at 2 reverts; the 3RR rule says 3. I've asked admin Ed Johnston to keep an eye on the page. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that you're assuming a revert is a repeat of a previous edit. Best to have a look at
WP:3RR -- it doesn't mean that, and you're currently at 4. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope -- you're right, though my count is 3. I was confused -- I'm juggling a complex bit of NSUndoManager code here. Sorry. But at the IP has already reverted me again (!), no harm done. I do think this is appallingly POV and very badly timed. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, with the earlier removal of the category it's 4. I hope it's clear I'm not trying to give you a hard time -- rather the opposite, trying to help. Normally I'd suggest going to 3RRN, but that's not a good idea for you right now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The category is a completely different topic. It's not the three edits per day rule. But -- on that one -- I've been asking high and low for guidance on the question. You mention above that you've published on the subject; might I have the reference? Or a pdf? Feel free to use email -- trivial googling should find me, or just post the citation here. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point, though -- it doesn't have to be the same topic, the removal of the category was a revert. (This is how it would be treated at 3RRN.) As for pubs -- I'd love to but I'm not prepared to reveal identity to anyone here. Sorry... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though not terribly collegial considering that you know who I am and what I write. How about the most convincing argument for your position published by a colleague? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
jose antonio vargas
can you explain why you reverted the removal of his reference as being a Filipino American as opposed to a Filipino? Please provide a citation, as he is not a citizen and his grandparents were naturalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are perfectly correct and I will back you up on this. Without a citation of naturalization as an American citizen, he is simply a resident and a Filapino expatriate, not an emigrant or American citizen.
Re your message about the above. I have not used primary sources, the sources I've added to the reference lists are two reputable auction houses. I've been trying to cut out some of the unsourced irtems in this article if you trouble to read it. Thank you Fillthemill (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)fillthemill[reply]
The auction records are publicly available and were arrived at via a secondary source, www.artprice.com. As the latter is only available on subscription, there is little point in using it as a reference link as most users would not be able to access it, therefore the references are covered by
WP:PSTS "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". The rest of the article is largely unsourced and unreferenced and appears mainly based on information that can only come from personal experience, which is in danger of making wikipedia a primary source of that material. Thank you. Fillthemill (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)fillthemill[reply
]
Again, the relevant policy here is
WP:BLPN; another editor has expressed concern about your editing, and I agree with that concern. My advice is to tread carefully. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The source is via artprice.com so self-evidently not a primary source. You say "The subject has expressed concern" - so we are dealing with an autobiography are we? Thank youFillthemill (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)fillthemill[reply]
I don't go around implying editors are bigots. In point of fact, I don't think anyone should be forced to leave the US. However, if they want to call themselves Americans, they need to go through our time honored tradition of Naturalization, just as my Finnish grandfather did. Fuck off. Sorry, I actually meant, Fuck off, asshole.
Please do read more carefully. I did not use the word dislike. Perhaps some self-reflection is in order to discover why you interpreted it that way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@
Yworo - You seem a little angry mate. Breathe. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
GeorgeLouis's talk page. -- 21:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
Hi again. Would you review the recent comments by Yworo on the University Bible Fellowship page? Thanks. I made a suggestion in the talk, but I'm not inclined to change the article in any way. Bkarcher (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem -- responded on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool thanks. Yes the link issue is resolved. Not sure about the integration of the controversies. I made my suggestion so I'll leave it at that. Bkarcher (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sir for giving a proper balance to the Scarlett Keeeling profile. Thanks again
Wuser999 (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
re: Greta Berlin
Hi there,
had references for the material on Greta Berlin - was changing the tital to "Antisemitic Views and Behaviour" unfair? Am open to comment and correction.
What was the problem with the citations I gave? again - am happy to learn if did it wrong or if they needed to be primary sources (links to Greta's own writings - postings?)
For the record, I prefer the page WITH the individual mentions you replaced. I boldly deleted the mentions as a form of compromise; I appreciate your reverting so we can discuss the issue. User:Arzel seems to be making noises toward another deletion procedure. I stand by my statements in the first one. BusterD (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I doubt Arzel will get his way here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you look over my latest few edits on the page? I may have delved into OR a bit. Fix or remove it as you see fit. It's an interesting discovery, and vaguely related, but that's my opinion. BusterD (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"leave indenting alone." It's not really nice to be bossy in Edit Summaries. Sorry, but I had trouble delineating the difference between your remark and the one just above it; I assumed others would find similar dificulty. You should really
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after
talk page
discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a place to discuss disputes that are
dispute resolution forums
.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be
the other editors
. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{
subst:drn-notice
}} on their user talk page.
Sign and date your posts with
four tildes
"~~~~".
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 18:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to review edits made to the article over the course of the month of February?208.102.160.123 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Amiram Goldblum: Revision history
Now that you've cited the correct reason for removing the vitriolic rhetoric posted by the user I have no problem with removing it. You used isracampus.org.il -- not WP:RS, rm which does not apply on a talk-page and I wanted the editors involved to be aware that you can't edit posts on a talk page the same way you edit the main article space. You have acknowledged that and I thank you for that. It also was going to be used by me to defend the removal of the material from the main article space and may still yet. There is a blurred line between acidic dialogue and conscientious fact. Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 17:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree it's not always obvious what to do, but that comment was clearly not intended to contribute to a constructive discussion on how to edit the article, and I think it was covered by
Hi Nomoskedasticity. You would probably be interested to see the conversation at User talk:Mr. Stradivarius#Epoka University. It looks like the University's website says that it is a secular institution, which might clash with the Oxford University source. This is probably one that needs to be debated at the talk page, I think. Let me know if there are any policy issues that you need help with, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 12:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. This is a frustrating editor to work with -- pretty obviously
Yeah, I agree. User:Sefina is probably a member of the Gülen movement and should not be editing at all on this. I let Stradivarius know that this user is engaging in edit warring.Vetevendosje (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
your edits on Delegitimization of Israel
As an experienced editor, I thought you would be familiar with WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. I'm a bit surprised that you would so quickly delete material that was posted WP:AGFScarletfire2112 (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are wrong to have article nominated for deletion. I also think that you are a foolish to make a collection of claims that are highly subjective. But I'm sure you enjoy sitting at your computer spending your time on these things.
Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. I am not edit warring, I simply disagree with some of edits you and your friends made. Ngoesseringer (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did I?
What an ass! I am sorry of I did, because I certainly these days associate your name with reliable assessments of disputed stuff. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. But I appreciate your kind words here -- no hard feelings. Certainly a trial by fire at the time, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that one. I vaguely remember that. Just shows that promotional editing is nothing new, 90% of those involved with that article were almost certainly working from its office! (not you) Guy (Help!) 08:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Formal mediation has been requested
The
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 April 2013.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
Hi Nomoskedasticity I would like to add following sentence OMICS Publishing Group is a publisher of approximately 250 open access journals in a number of academic fields with the support from 20,000 editorial board members (http://pharma.financialexpress.com/sections/market-section/1341-criteria-of-speaker-selection-is-important-to-convey-the-quality-level).
In my opinion, we should pick both positive and negative points from the respective references to follow the wiki neutrality. From Nature article you collected negative point instead of neutrality sentence. Rich1982 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Randykitty and Nomoskedasticity, i would like to add one paragraph regarding this group conferences. This group is conducting around 70 scientific conferences per year in multiple cities around the world. Following references i would like to include, let me know your opinion.
Nomoskedasticity, can you think of a good reason why I wouldn't block this editor indefinitely for promotional editing? Drmies (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None at all. My own next step was going to be SPI, specifically here (note User:Omics Group Inc) -- but I have no objection to a shorter route to an inevitable outcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holy moly. What did I stick my nose into this time? I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that one is done. A new editor popped up. Would you mind adding a note to the SPI for CU to be run again? Who knows what else might appear. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That new one is quite different from Rich1982 (the added material goes in a completely different direction). Let's hold off a bit to see whether someone else pops up to carry on as per Rich1982. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing--whatever you say. You know this better than me. BTW, thanks for being on top of it: maybe I should send you the "academic publishing" spam (hint: www.garj.org) I keep getting out of India. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those garj.org guys are particularly inept: I keep getting their spam for journals that are so far from my field that they might as well be extraterrestrial... :-) Nomo, I saw that you created this category: Category:Predatory open access journals. I'm not sure that is a good idea. Much as I think that "predatory OA journal" should be mentioned in those articles, I doubt we should use this moniker as a category designation. After all, it's only based on Beall's list. Creating a separate cat for these journals/publishers (very few of which are notable anyway) is perhaps overkill. --Randykitty (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the term is Beall's, but the idea transcends the term, and my sense is that it's useful -- in part for enabling efficient identification of similar entities, and in part to distinguish them (in re the categories on the articles) from the legitimate publishers. My guess is that there are other articles to add to the narrower category, and if there aren't many yet there likely will be more. PS, Drmies, thanks for the offer, but I get plenty of that crap already! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ut who decides which publisher/journal is going to be included in that cat? For the moment, all we have is Beall's list. --Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's up to the editors working on a particular article, via consensus formed in the normal way (e.g. if there is disagreement). Beall's list is of course influential at this stage, as evident in the coverage it is recently getting. But things could develop, so that we would consider judgements made by others as well (as evident in RSs, etc.). I can understand wanting something unimpeachably "objective" for this purpose, but there are a great many Wikipedia categories that depend on judgements rooted in readings of sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- I'll comment there soon. BTW, I've already gone to SPI with a report on our new friend. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I didn't see that and filed a report, too. Do you know how to merge the two (I listed Rich1982 as sockmaster)? --Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if they can be merged -- perhaps just leave a note on yours about the duplicate. (Scholarscentral (talk·contribs) is the obvious master here.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A. P. J. Abdul Kalam
User:Wasifwasif is adding unreliable sources to a biogragical article. I'm reverting the changes, see the talk page and edit description on P. J. Abdul Kalam. That page needs protection. I hope you will help. Thanks --Neelkamala (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny
Just wanted to add my two cents about your comment of yesterday, in which someone wrote "Is Wikipedia vulnerable to such abuse" and you merely said, "Generally, yes." People in the library are staring at me for laughing out loud.Closedthursday (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. Always happy to make people laugh (especially in libraries). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request for mediation rejected
The
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
I suggest you self-revert your Santorum edit as the topic has, in the past, been under admin restrictions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Predatory publishers
Hi Nomo, no rush if you already saw this on my talk page and just haven't had a chance to take a look at it yet, but there's a draft here. A few things I know it could use is a brief discussion of different OA types (green vs gold), a paragraph or so on the effects it has on researchers, and a bit of general cleanup. Thanks for any help you can provide, a13ean (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay; I've been rather busy this past month but will try to make some changes suggested by Beall and move into normal space in the next day or so. Cheers a13ean (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, no worries, I know life gets in the way... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Predatory open access publishing is now in article space if you would like to take a look at it; I'll keep adding in background information. Cheers a13ean (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
I would like to point out that what took place at that page since January follows the sort of pattern described here. [23]208.102.160.123 (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hint #2: it has to do with the places you've visited, as listed on your user page. You've visited two places called Georgia. They're not really the same place, are they? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Nomoskedasticity. You have new messages at MisterShiney's talk page. Message added 12:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
His close was entirely reasonable and you're giving us fripparies. (Maybe it will work with slightly different words.)
Why do you feel that the concerns I mentioned there are invalid? Or do you agree with me that my concerns are legitimate? -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
no personal attacks
wow, nomo, I see you took offense at the goldblum editing discussion, when you wrote: "The edit summary linked above [128], shows Nataev referring to Golblum as an "idiot". There is now an edit on the talk page where Nataev refers to Goldblum as a "pseudo-scientist". In addition Nataev is attacking other editors, calling one of them "pathetic" and "a joke" [129]. I don't think this editor should be editing in this particular topic area and in fact should spend a brief period not editing at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)"
and yet, you have no qualms whatsoever, to call me names, attack me personally and the like. interesting. care to comment? Soosim (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soosim, I strongly encourage you to report me. I would like nothing more than to have more attention focused on your editing habits, and so a nice juicy report by you at ANI would make my day. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
nice threat. irrelevant though. NPA really doesn't allow for sanctions, so i will not waste my time. Soosim (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nomo, I've just posted a short reply on the
EDMC Talk page. If you have any comments on the draft I've proposed, I'm very willing to hear your input. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 07:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Made some edits; if fairly limited, they're along the lines you had suggested. Let me know what you think when you have a moment. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, you seem busy with other articles, so I've reached out to find some input at relevant WikiProjects. I'm happy to have you in the discussion, but if you're not interested in reviewing any further, that's OK. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Nomo. I've responded to your comment about Kathleen Bittel on the EDMC Talk page. Did you have any specific comments about the draft? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nomo, I have given some thoughts on EDMC talkpage and made some syntax deletions to WWB Toos draft. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 01:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, and thanks for your fix! -Darouet (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i before e except after c
lol sincere appreciation on the EDMC fix, now that I see your earlier edit didn't want to give the impression I was messing with you. I actually looked it up and maybe misread the differences, it's something I have a sort of mental block on but thanks for the assist! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 19:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no worries. Used correctly in your post here! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COI and sock/meatpuppetry
Thanks for your edits at OMICS Publishing Group. Having been away from Wikipedia for a very long time, I've been getting up to speed on the editing patterns and made a few new comments at SPI that might be of interest to you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- saw it a little while ago. How to handle the fame??! :/ Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a recent edit summary, you wrote, "revert to non-edit-warring version, trying to incorporate some of the later fixes as well; apologies if I haven't caught everything". Actually, you wiped out just about all of my later fixes and I had to do them all over again. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies (again). I did try to find certain elements that you had addressed, but I got the impression that they pertained to the changes made by Economust. In any event, a perusal of the recent history should show why it was necessary to revert Economust's edits; if not, have a look at that user's talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Help needed
Hi, Nomoskedasticity, and mazel tov for the knighthood recently confered on you by Haaretz! Your help as a user experienced in Orthodox Jewish issues is needed at the article about David Luchins I started not expecting any problems. But they showed up in the guise of several IPs, including one who claimed to be related to Luchins [25]. I would appreciate your help to get the article back on track in spite of the personel interest-interference. Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help, but it looks like things have settled down there now. Is there something more that needs to be done? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article IMO needs to correspond to other articles about people involved in controveries. The controversial aspect of Luchins engagement within the Jewish community was removed as a result of pressure from parties (allegedly) concerned. I do not believe in bowing to pressure as a Wikipedia policy. But I let things cool down before I make a further attempt to get the article on track. If you could help, it might keep the POV oriented parties away from the article and its talk page - or so I'd hope. Maybe you can put the article on your watchlist and "interfere" if interference is needed one way or the other? Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gary A. Olson
As per Wikipedia policy:
Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting.
A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony.
In addition to helping the reverted editor, providing information regarding the reversion will help other editors by letting them know whether – or not – they need to even view the reverted version, such as in the case of blanking a page. Explaining reverts also helps users who check edit histories to determine the extent to which the information in the article is reliable or current.
If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; thus giving the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately. Conversely, if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's or your user's talk page.
In other words, "what?" is not an adequate justification for reversion. Your history of condescension and hostility in the editing commentary are inappropriate and against Wikipedia policy. The problem with the entry I edited is that it is about a faculty vote in which Gary Olson played a role (and, as per the entry, at an institution in which Olson no longer works). As a consequence, it is imbalanced compared to the other summaries about Olson's professional activities. I left the existing citations at the end of the sentence concerning Olson's resignation Idaho State so that Wikipedia readers would be able to access it if interested. If you are concerned about readers' access to such information, you can add additional citations as per Wikipedia standards. Or, if you would like to create greater balance with the previous entries about why Olson resigned from previous administrative positions, then that would be welcome as well. But you are policing this page rather than contributing positively to its evolution, which is also against Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugothebunny (talk • contribs) 09:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you might want to lodge a complaint about my actions at
It is serious slander to accuse a living person of pedophilia when they have not been legally accused of that crime. Pedophilia is a serious crime and that was not Jeffrey Epstein's conviction. Please see the Fox News link for example. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/07/01/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-pleads-guilty-to-prostitution-charge/ Circuit Court Judge Deborah Pucillo in West Palm Beach charged Jeffrey Epstein of soliciting underage prostitution. The Daily Beast and Gawker and all of those others are not legally accurate sources.
I have no interest in promoting Jeffrey Epstein but I am interested in maintaining a fair and neutral point of view and not to engage in a Crucible like cacophony of false and slanderous accusations.
I will paste this on Jeffrey Epstein's talk page and will be asking other editors to back it.
Hi Nomoskedasticity,
I do not understand why you are persistently interfering with the page of Near East University despite that there is no unsourced information, I last time added the info about faculties of which reference is given in the link of university and this is not an unsourced material. Can you specifically let me know why you removed this info, please?
He at least gets points for persistence, I suppose... Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking consensus
Please see responses on Talk:British Jews and give us your view on BusStop's suggestion. Is there a Gordian Knot Barnstar yet? There should be. VEBott (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening third Mises.org noticeboard discussion
The process for challenging a closure is here:
WP:Asking the other parent. Moreover, you were involved in that discussion and I was not. Alas, the reopening that third thread has simply lead to another repeated restatement of the same argument we have seen again and again. – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, do give me a break. Unlike yourself, I am completely uninvolved in this "Austrian" topic; your own deep involvement in it made it completely inappropriate for you to close that discussion. Kindly refrain from posting transparent bullshit on my talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to see you edit warring at that article again. You should know that just because you cite
WP:BRD, you don't get to BRRD. Please stop. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Very* puzzling. I can only surmise that you haven't looked deeply enough to understand what is going on. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Flowers (banker), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Co-operative Bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RJensen has a sockpuppet removing discussion from the talk page now despite Edgar181 telling me to take it to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.6 (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI
I have created a new report on the ANI noticeboard regarding the block of Joefromrandb. TigerShark (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nova
So everyone is just going to leave the Nova Science publishers entry in this biased tone based on those two inadequate references? One looked at publications strictly in the discipline of eastern european politics and economics and the other one is a reference of that reference and a discussion thread, not a consensus among all librarians. And not to clarify the Sense standing is bizarre. Was hoping my additions would be productive, but that does not appear to be the aim for the editors involved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higgsboson42 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lloyd Irvin
I know you contributed quite a bit to the last discussion so I figured I'd apprise you of this current one in case you wish to contribute again.
Wikipedia:BLPN#Lloyd Irvin (again) Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks -- I'm holding back for the moment, to see what other people say first. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Complaints about editor named Nomoskedasticity
There is this editor named Nomoskedasticity. He keeps deleting new information with references. If an ambasador visits a university and if that university puts the photo with the face of the ambassador then this is a legit argument. The photos did not have the back of the head of the distinguished speakers.
Artlika (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Art[reply]
He keeps deleting info he does not like. If an institution is a member of UNESCO based organization: there is no reason to delete this information from Wikipedia. What is the reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.255.29 (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on
I don't think that characterizing this as "drawing an equivalence between being gay and treason" is very accurate. The editor is using a bit of hyperbole in a reasonable way to make a reasonable point. Maybe he's wrong but it's a fair point.
Re the question being discussed, it's an interesting question and something that reasonable people can disagree on; I certainly think that both sides have reasonable points. It's not really fair or nice or helpful to discussion to imply that an editor thinks gay people and traitors are of a class when he doesn't, so I'd suggest in future to calm down and dial it down on that sort of stuff. Herostratus (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh. I appreciate you looking out for me, but I think I'll stand by those particular comments. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wherein AQFN tried to pretend to be an admin
The
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Climate change. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision
" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at
, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
I keep looking for the evidence that you are an admin, let alone an uninvolved one. Not that I'm worried about it -- I've never edited any articles in this topic area. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You don't have to be admin to alert an editor that discretionary sanctions apply. You may not have edited them before, but you are editing them now and are aware of the sanctions.[26]A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor not reading what they are posting. Look in the box. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the notification might be poor, but that doesn't change the fact that you are now aware that this topic is under discretionary sanctions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I was aware of them before, darling. Honestly… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this to the non-admin template, and replaced the heading as, while it is your user talk, such alterations are not appropriate. Hopefully this change is to your liking. On another note, I have logged your acknowledgement that you are aware of the discretionary sanctions in lieu of restoring AQFK's notification.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 18:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3rr
Since i have only reverted once, that shouldn't be a problem. thank you for your concern. I return the favour by reminding you of the 3RR, since this is now your second revert and you are refusing to engage in the talk page. Have a nice day.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on all counts, I think. I'm certainly on the talk page. I've reverted only once (providing a proper reference instead of a bare url is hardly a revert). And I can't imagine why you think you've reverted only once. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed your January 20 3RR report about Napoleon Chagnon with warnings to three editors and full protection of the article. Your edits are mentioned in the closure of the report. This is a surprisingly 'political' article The dispute on that article is reminiscent of left-right disputes in American politics. The community can reasonably expect that people will follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution when they have strong views about article content. Of course, it was worthwhile for you to take this to AN3 but your position would be stronger there if it seemed you were taking the lead toward a proper resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you report me. Then add to the report page twice a day for four days rather than engaging on the talk page. And this is the result. I was warned as well, which is fair enough. I should have just taken it to resolution as soon as it became clear that you pair were willing to add anything from any source right your great wrong. But the moderator comment was that my arguments on the talk page were persuasive. Yours, no so much. You may want to think on this. I look forward to further robust engagement on this subject.Mark Marathon
Perkins
You beat me by seconds, I had an edit conflict when I reverted. I've just found this article today and it's on my watchlist now.
Okay, great -- I wouldn't want to revert a third time… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
January 2014
Sorry and thank you for letting me know. --Precision123 (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EU
Hi Nomoskedasticity - i have done quite a bit of research following our December 2013 talks and will propose some updates through the EU talk page. In the mean time, regarding the sourced official content i added, i went ahead and responded in the talk page and readded this official source in the Controversies part since it seems IP users are near vandalism. I'd be happy to discuss all that, i will be putting in Talk the different conclusions i have found while researching this Swiss law situation! Regards, J. Swissjane (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissjane (talk • contribs) 11:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirection
Hello, I'm Monica. You may have automatically redirected that your edit to omics group. If you have, don't worry: I just edited the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks Monicagellar 08 (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was wondering if you might be of some assistance. I notice you had been involved in this particular article and seem to be an upper level editor. On the entry for Robert Sungenis, an editor keeps removing reference to an article in the Washington Post that says Sungenis' bishop directed him to remove the word "Catholic." He claims that the report is unreliable and keeps reverting the edit that was original there, starting an edit war. That doesn't strike me as reasonable, but I will defer to your judgment. That seems like an important piece of information that belongs there. You can see some discussion on the Talk page for Robert Sungenis. Thanks for your help. PAGauden (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I managed to convince St. Anselm that the statement was accurate. I found a place where the subject of the article said almost exactly what the Washington Post article said. Thanks for your help - I saw your comment on the talk page of the article. PAGauden (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would you think if I nominated you for adminship?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind, but I'm doubtful that there's any prospect of success. I'm not careful enough -- I speak my mind too freely and have pissed off a lot of people. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to RFC/U Statement
The guidelines for
user conduct Requests for Comments state that editors should not make statements disagreeing with the views on the RFC project page, but should either make those comments on the talk page or in their own views. Your objection to the statement by Anthonyhcole has been moved to the RFC/U talk page, with no comments on the merits of either view. (However, I agree with you more than with Anthony.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
Hi again, Nomo. Thanks for looking into the edits on the
Art Institutes
articles. Would you have time to look into these new edits? I've left notes on all the individual talk pages with my thoughts.
It seems this editor has an ax to grind and will continue to make edits. Do you think we should keep addressing them as they occur or do you think gaining semi-protection for the EDMC article might be helpful? Curious to hear your thoughts on the issue. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does using a real name for username invoke BLP protection?
Hi Nomo, am I correct to assume that you would not have done this if a pseudonymous username were used instead?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that's correct. I also see it has been reverted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you're correct, because that would mean we have to be a lot more careful at talk pages when talking with a certain class of editors (i.e. real-user-name editors). If I go to user talk of a real- name-editor and say "you have been disruptive ", do I need a RS to say he's been disruptive? Of course not, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collect in particular is quite the stickler on this issue, insisting that BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, thus, no unsourced contentious/negative stuff. You might be right, but it might be Collect who needs to be convinced. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's true in a sense. If I cannot say "X is a convicted child molester" in a BLP without a RS, then I can't say it at a user talk page either. Anyway, see ya later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collect sure is a RS for his own opinion expressed on his own talk page where he indirectly speaks to Jimbo.
It may be a copyvio (or not), but I think it should be discussed, maybe get some opinions before deletion. Editor2020 (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you closed this discussion?
You closed
Wikipedia:BLPNB#Tor_.28anonymity_network.29. Can you say why? 88.75.168.80 (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
"Not a BLP problem." Is that your reason? Could you go into more depth please? You also wrote that in the Kieth Haring thread but did not actually close the discussion. 94.222.101.145 (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, you appear to be very sure that it is not. I want to know what I am missing. 94.222.101.145 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My miracle days are over. But have fun storming the castle! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me where to talk about content disputes over misquotes that damage a person's reputation? 92.78.149.81 (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's been done. Two editors strongly support material that is factually wrong and damaging to the subjects. Did you read the conflicting sources? 188.103.62.231 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, not a big deal
But it turns out that unreferenced BLP does not take a section argument, so [27] marks the entire article as unsourced. Just a FYI. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 14:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Basel School of Business
Hi Nomoskedasticity, Could you take a look at Basel School of Business? Any input from you would be appreciated. Thanks! Audit Guy (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! With reinforcements to boot it seems. Thanks for your edits. Audit Guy (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I
The elision of the primary question posed in an RfC is noted at AN/I Collect (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response on Argosy and request for help
Hi Nomo, I just wanted to make sure you saw my response over on the Argosy Talk page. If you have time, I'm hoping you might be able to look over a few open requests I have on other articles as well:
Market Diamond and I have been discussing some edits to the lede of the Art Institutes article for some time and would like a third opinion.
I sincerely apologise for the editing war. It was an honest mistake since I had no idea why the other editor kept on reverting my edit and also that too many reverts were a part of misconduct. It won't happen again. Thankyou for warning me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousha hashmi (talk • contribs) 05:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects about Religious Jews
Please let me know if I am wrong. You don't need to respond.
I Engaged in editing with you on 2 articles:
Judge Linda R. Reade - A judge who sentenced a Religious Jew to 27 years in prison over fraud.
Rabbi Manis Friedman, a Jewish Religious figure (based on the article content.)
In both cases it seemed to me (please let me know if I am wrong) that your edits were bias against Religious Jews, and in one case there were clear BLP violations. In one case you consistently removed information, in the other case you added information.
You removed controversial sourced material from Linda R. Reade[28]
Multiple times you removed sourced material from the
Huffington Post and many others). The case created Unique Documentaries about the justice, and was criticized by over 45 congress and nearly 100 politicians as discussed | HERE
She was involved in this case for nearly 1/3 of her carreer (4 years).
You only wanted a 1-2 line statement with multiple removals. Your main argument was that it is undue and too dominant in the article.
(You also advocated calling the Religious Jew - that convicted (Rubashkin) a "fraudster" [29]).
You added poorly sourced defamatory material to Manis Friedman's BLP article[30]
This very lengthy material that you added included:
Defamatory information that were not exactly in the sources. The sources were distorted (including adding "IDF" not from source - making it sound like he told IDF to go and kill people although he just quoted from the bible - and adding the word "brief" to his apology)
Sources included blogs (defamatory blogs). (Including the same COL blog that you removed from Read).
Edit failed to include Friedman's response from the sources.
(The sources were also smaller Newspapers some even stated clear POV for writing against Friedman.)
Edit included plagiarism.
This seems inconsistent bias to write against religious people
A controversial "Ruling" of such high profile which you removed, - is apparently much more notable than a one time controversial "comment" made by a subject(that was sourced in a few low profile news papers) -which you added.
The sources of the text that you removed are much more reliable than those you added
The material you added was much more lengthy and one sided that that of Read that you removed which included all sides.
However I do understand the edit warring history that went on in both articles that was a possible reason for your edits.Caseeart (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm Jewish myself, it's a straightforward matter for me to dismiss your accusations as baseless and ridiculous. But hey, maybe you could get some traction by making a complaint against me at ANI -- go for it! If you do so, you might try improving your literacy in written English: "bias" is not an adjective (though somehow I doubt you'll be able to use that information to figure out what you did wrong). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about *Religious* Jews. Thanks for clarifying that my comment is not accurate (I only discussed and compared the 2 edits that we were both involved). I had absolutely no intention on ANI - I was only writing a possible concern. Let me know if this header is better.Caseeart (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. And you can surely tell that I see things quite differently from John -- so please don't read what I did as an attempt to reinforce his approach. If you look at
WP:TPG, I think you'll agree that it's better (and indeed required) to restrict discussion on article talk pages to attempts to improve the article. Comments of the sort you added belong on user talk pages. I do hope you understand. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your prompt reply. I appreciate that you have given me concerned advice regarding my edit there, but I beg to differ in that I was commenting directly on John's attempt to chill legitimate discussion by abusing his admin status. I was merely agreeing with the sentiments already expressed on that thread about it. I am reasonably familiar with talk page guidelines, and considered them before my comment. I haven't decided what to do yet, either reinstate my comment, or rephrase it. Either way, you must not see it as a criticism of your actions. regards -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum : Funnily, at the same time as you removed my comment, another editor "thanked" me for it. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you post along those lines again, I won't remove it again. But I suggest trying to orient it more explicitly to the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, no problem. Your argument was legitimate, though. --JustBerry (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Grimm
Did you check out the link? Did you read the Talk page? There are plenty of similar Talk pages, too. As I posted on Ronz's Talk page:
Ronz, I have asked you and your "friends" numerous times, on numerous Talk pages, to explain why you insist things such as voting records, statements on the floor of Congress, campaign contribution, etc., etc., etc., are "not relevant" in articles about U.S. politicians. NOT ONCE have any of you provided a real response. All you do is smirk and bat the ball back over the net, demanding I convince YOU that such things are relevant. You think that's cute? It's not. This has gone on long enough. Time for you to explain yourselves and act like adults. If not, accept the consequences. You are NOT going to destroy Wikipedia as an educational resource for our readers. And if any of you are found to have been doing this "cleansing" for money...this isn't going to stop with Wikipedia. Is that clear? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I only point this out because I noticed you posted on the Jimbo Wales's Talk page about Wikipedia policy being "overruled" by "consensus". 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gupta
What is the problem with my article. I have worked a lot on this.
What ever are the issues let me know with the article?
Hi again Nomoskedasticity: I am posing this to you only because when you officially started editing on 23 January 2008 [33][34] it was on the original
WP:NPOV
sentences and states what ORT is for and not what it is against while you insist that the Haredi Judaism article "must" say what it is "against" (modernity, secularism, whatnot). Why is that exactly? Is ORT any more or less worthy than Haredi Judaism? Why should the Haredi Judaism article have negative intros and comments (with "nice" sources of course) and at the same time, by not just giving a free pass to the ORT article, but in fact fighting to defend it? You think I am "wrong"? Well I am not!
Thus, the ORT article opens with:
"The
interdisciplinary conferences organized and run by a California-based educational organization. The mission of the Oxford Round Table, according to its website, is "to provide an interdisciplinary forum for the discussion of contemporary issues that affect the public good in all its various forms and ramifications. http://www.oxfordroundtable.com/ ." Note that the so-called ref is its OWN website (naturally, when there is a double standard) and definitely not what some outside critics have to say about it per lots of critical stuff that is there for all to read at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table
AfD!!!
On the other hand, the Haredi Judaism article has to put up with:
"Haredi Judaism...is a stream of Orthodox Judaism characterized by rejection of modernsecular culturehttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Haredi ." Certainly not a nice thing to say about any group as their introduction on a major international encyclopedia (i.e. Wikipedia) and it's certainly not the way the ORT article is introduced even though it is a very shady controversial mysterious organization backed by even shadier powers that be in "America" who act in the shadows unlike the Haredim who have nothing to hide and are all out there in the open.
As I said, I am just beginning to look into this entire subject to understand what is going on and why you act in such a
WP:OWN manner in the Hasidic Judaism article. I am sure there must be a rational answer. Thanks in advance. IZAK (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you still haven't worked out that it's wildly off base to say I "work for the ORT POV". Once you do, you'll see how misguided this entire post is. I do not have a negative POV about Haredi Judaism. I also reject the idea that reverting an editor's edit amounts to WP:OWN. Let's try to have a more productive discussion at the article talk page, okay? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that you have conflicting issues with the ORT (see User talk:Nomoskedasticity/Archives#Conflict of interest warning; User talk:Nomoskedasticity/Archives#Oxford Round Table; User talk:Nomoskedasticity/Archives#Oxford Round Table again), sometimes you come off as defending them, like when you vote to "Keep" the article about them, and at other times you get into edit wars over what they do. Truly mystifying. It is confusing. I have amended my comments accordingly. But the fact remains very simple, while the ORT article introduces its subject for what it stands for, you insist that the Haredi Judaism article must start out with what it is against and it's not pleasant or correct. Have you seen the questions I pose there. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
R Tropper
HI,
I noticed you reinserted "controversies" , i wanted ask if theres any reason for this reinsertion, since its not necessary to state something thats false and pointless. By doing so, a persons life
is being framed for something thats true causing a great amount of humiliation. I Rabbi Tropper personally, he's not deserving of such bad reputation. Especially on false facts that took almost half a decade ago.
Please i ask if you could assist me in removing the heading "Controversies" and the blogs and References below. It would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your understanding in this matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loulou12326 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you are going to cite WP:BRD, it would make sense for to you engage in meaningful discussion. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons Image as RS
Are you kidding me? It's a Commons image. Anybody can make an image saying anything. It should be sourced to an actual document/book. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a blurb on the cover of the book. The reference could be amended to say this. But there's no reason to doubt that Chomsky wrote it. I don't care all that much -- if someone else removes it, no big deal. But "Commons image" isn't much of an argument when it's obvious that they are in fact Chomsky's words. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello There
I hope I'm using this form correctly. Thank you for your message. I've been evaluating the Charles R. Pellegrino page and it appears to have content against Wikipedia's rules and regulations. The PhD controversy situation was never settled in official court and has no ruling. It seems like slander to me to accuse someone of a crime that has never been confirmed or denied by an official court ruling. There is evidence against the claim that Pellegrino did not earn his PhD, however (evidence I have seen and can provide upon request). Additionally, I believe having a section regarding Pellegrino's scientific contributions as a scientist, which are all readily available in credible sources online would be nice since he is a scientist after all. Unless, of course, the Wikipedia page is only for the intention of reporting solely Pellegrino's controversies and book titles? Please let me know, and thank you for your efforts and assistance!
Arixmethes (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your post here. I suggest having a good look at the links in the message I left for you -- there's important information there about how to edit Wikipedia correctly. Some key policies:
WP:RS? Substantively: the issue is not whether he committed a crime, and so it doesn't matter if there wasn't a "conviction" or even a final ruling. As for contributions as a scientist -- that should be fine, but please try to learn the coding for adding references (look for examples by clicking "edit" on the article). Happy to help further if I can. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Disambiguation link notification for July 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Luntz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Miliband article modification RS
Hi you have just undone an edit i have made to ed milibands wiki page stating RS I provided a link to the video of the event, could you please let me know what more RS i need to give.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.11.46 (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think a youtube-hosted video meets
WP:RS. Even if you find a better source, I doubt other editors are going to think this belongs on his biography. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Bob Beers COI
Thanks for noting the potential conflict. I added a new paragraph on the talk page openly discussing my conflict as a result, and moved it to the top. I would like to say I should have done it already, but I had already done it already (currently the bottom comment on the talk page). You should remove the "apparent" from your warning. Thanks, Bob.Bob Beers 00:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbeers (talk • contribs)
The wording is automatic, via a template. The notice goes on the article itself so that readers (not just editors) are aware. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm letting you know because I copied your comment from the discussion suggesting an WP:ANI review into the listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This edit has been extensively edit-warred since it was added. There is already a discussion on the talk page. If you think it belongs there, please don't just add it. Participate in the discussion, or open an RfC. Kingsindian♝♚ 10:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw's edits
May I request your review of Montanabw's edits to the discussion of the plagiarism allegations in John Walsh (U.S. politician), please? You may not like everything I wrote, but you've given me no reason not to trust your opinion and your good judgment. I don't think there's anything he made better. I think he did exactly what I expected he might do, which was to do everything possible to muddle, revert and bury the issue as best he could. He didn't even leave the source citations for the DoD oversight of the academic review, the fact that all 6 of Walsh's conclusions were plagiarized or the quote from the provost who'd done the initial review. This second part of "Walsh said that he was being treated for PTSD at the time.[13] but stated, "I don't want to blame my mistake on PTSD, but I do want to say it may have been a factor"." isn't even a sentence. Can you help, please? Msnicki (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's cranking up again:
Talk:John_Walsh_(U.S._politician)#Plagiarism_allegations_redux. FYI. Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
You didn't review the material, I kept much of what was moved, and made multiple non-revert edits. The article was edited against the prior consensus established last July and there was no evidence that anything had changed, it's all the same people. Montanabw(talk) 15:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was a strange edit summary ("don't template the regulars"), given that I didn't use a template.... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same basic principle, it was just unneeded snark in the tone of a template. Furthermore, you, Nomoskedasticity, cherry-picked the diffs at the 3RR board to show only my reverts of Msnicki, by the way. And as I contacted you as one of the involved parties in the previous mess, I was hardly "canvassing" only for people on my side. Montanabw(talk) 21:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for kindly putting up with my nonsense and gracefully accepting my apology...!
I shouldn't have been so strident about that link, and should not have been so threatening about it. Just trying to keep the discussion on-track without too many distractions - but I was too harsh with you, so my apologies.
Thank you, I really appreciate that. I was puzzled, it didn't fit with my sense of you from other contexts, and I'm glad to see that sense was right. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here
.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means
. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
I'm alerting you about these discretionary sanctions as I want to move away from the BLP issues at G. Edward Griffin. Apologies for the double notification regarding the same article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomoskedasticity, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 12:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit at G. Edward Griffin Talk involves a spurious claim you made about me as follows: "Your repeated reference to other editors' disagreements with you as "disruption" is improper..." Excuse me, but the statement that obviously provoked your spurious comment follows: "...has offered a fair and viable compromise which certainly does not warrant the disruption we're seeing now." Not one editor was mentioned or referenced. My statement was a generalization of the disruption we are currently experiencing at the article - meaning disturbance or problems that interrupt an event, activity, or process per Webster. I remind you to adhere to WP:Civility, and stop your personal attacks against me. Atsme☯Consult 17:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You attack other editors for being disruptive -- on no grounds other than that they are expressing their disagreement with you -- and then object to being called on it? I have no intention of ceasing my participation in talk pages in this mode, and if you think it amounts to disruption and personal attacks then you might need to test that theory at ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong - the opposite is happening - my grounds are BLP violations which have been supported by editors far more experienced than you. Your comments are duly noted. Atsme☯Consult 19:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I am perpetrating BLP violations, then you really should take it to ANI. How can you not?? Surely you have a responsibility. If you continue to accuse others of disruption as before, I will continue to call you on it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RfC, and do a self-revert. I followed guidelines, and you reverted without any grounds to do so. Atsme☯Consult 07:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
There's no provision in RfC for an "alternate question". Your understanding of policy here appears to be flawed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But if you do it at this stage, you disrupt the responses already given -- people have been responding yes or no, and your question is not one that leads to yes/no answers. As I noted in the edit summary, doing it at this stage disrupts the RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I acknowledge that I had overlooked that passage (read too quickly). Unlike some, I'm happy to acknowledge when I've gotten things wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully you read the rest of it and will self-revert. Atsme☯Consult 08:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that it wasn't I who self-reverted... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be so bad if you were actually correct once in a while, but instead, we keep having these ridiculous exchanges because of something you did or said that was inappropriate. Atsme☯Consult 23:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again noting that it was you who had to self-revert... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have to, I chose to out of respect for Callanecc's request. I actually do respect the consult and requests of those editors who are far more experienced than I, even when it conflicts with our guidelines. I will be opening a new section at the TP which will include exactly what I chose to revert. Please stop your childish provocations. Atsme☯Consult 15:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on how you'd react if I posted this kind of shit on your talk page? I mean, hey, take the rope, I don't really care -- I like popcorn too. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like this [35]? There are others, but I'll sum it up by saying my reaction was simply to archive them...you know...in the event they were needed for reference at a later date. You can certainly do the same. Oh, and a bit of advice - don't invest in too much popcorn on my account. I won't be responding here anymore. Atsme☯Consult 18:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that was funny!! Atsme☯Consult 00:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its OK. This editor admits it's mistake.
I actually do know the difference. It was just sloppy editing on my part.- MrX 15:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops -- now I'm embarrassed -- I had no idea who it was, and now I'm unhappy that I was so blunt about someone who is actually quite valuable at Wikipedia. Please accept my apologies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, really it's OK. That's the kind of mistake that I'm really embarrassed to make. Thanks for catching it.- MrX 15:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neve Michael etc
Hello Nomoskedasticity. I was wondering if you could explain your edits to Neve Michael and Netiv HaLamed-Heh. Why is Palestinian preferable to Arab? All villages pre-1948 were Palestinian, but only some were Arab villages. Thanks, Number57 09:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the source. In the title of the source, in fact. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'm not sure blindly following what a source says is particularly productive (to paraphrase Samuel Johnson, in my experience it's usually it's the last refuge of the nationalist scoundrel, at least on Wikipedia). We frequently use different language to that used by sources where it is more appropriate to do so. Number57 10:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following what a source says is called
WP:OR. Odd that an administrator needs to have this explained. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
No, it's not original research, and I'm fairly sure you're aware that it isn't (at least I'd hope you would be). As an example, if I have an autobiography of an Ipswich Town player, and it makes references to him "signing for the Blues", "playing for the Tractor Boys", "leaving the Portman Road club", this is not the kind of language we would use when using the book as a reference on Wikipedia – instead we would substitute all the club nicknames for "Ipswich Town", as this is unambiguous and encylopedic. But anyway, if this is the line of argument you're resorting to, then it's clear a productive discussion isn't possible here. Cheers, Number57 10:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: I think you should take the point more seriously. You are surely aware that the choice of Arab vs. Palestinian is highly contentious (a football analogy won't be helpful, then). Drawing on a source that uses one term to support text here that uses another is bound to lead to problems. My edit results in consistency between source and text. Why on earth would that be a bad thing? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why certain editors make it a bone of contention, but I personally do not understand why it would be contentious – Palestinians are Arabs. I had hoped I had already answered your last question in both the edit summaries I used in the edits to the articles and in the first comment I made on your talk page above, but if I need to repeat it – in this context Palestinian is ambiguous – prior to 1948 "Palestinian" and "Arab" were not synonymous – all residents (and villages) were Palestinian. Hence referring to something pre-1948 as "Palestinian" does not necessarily help readers identify whether something was Arab or Jewish. Number57 11:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly: in your view, Jews living in that part of the world prior to 1948 were "Palestinian". Hmm. I'll just let that statement speak (to anyone else who might read here) for itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the term "Palestinian Jews" has largely fallen into disuse" -- relevance for writing text now?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we were talking modern-day events, then I would agree with you, but the context of the text in question is 1948. Number57 13:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moving comments to RfC
I'd like to delete the new (un-needed) subsection and move my comments to the RfC. I'd like your permission to delete the subsection given that you commented in that subsection. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert of my AfC AfD template at No-go is duly noted. You might want to read
WP:HOUND and seriously consider changing your disruptive behavior. Atsme☯Consult 22:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
AfC?? What is that? Anyway -- you'll note from my edit summary that your attempt to restore the
WP:PROD was in violation of the clear instructions on that template. So you've got nothing to complain about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Typo - fixed it. The problem is that you are hawking my edits. Showing up at an article coincidentally or because you actually have an interest there wouldn't have been a problem. The issue arose when you reverted my edit. Please stop your disruptive behavior. Atsme☯Consult 00:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you think it WAS okay to replace the template -- even though the template says "If this template is removed, do not replace it". Gotcha. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't what I think. After the Speedy Delete template was removed, I thought the template I added was the AfD template, but I was having issues over the hyphen, and Doniago fixed it, so your compulsive interference was unnecessary. I'm not a bad editor, or a vandal so please stop treating me like one, and AGF. Atsme☯Consult 20:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with User Srj4000
Hi, I'm hoping you can help out with this, because I'm not well-versed in how to stop persistent whitewashing. Srj4000(talk) has been engaged for almost 3 years in trying to force a non-NPOV slant on much of the Joe Paterno article. I reverted one edit he made in particular, just now, where he removed one reference and put in his own, while changing a sentence to make Paterno look better in light of the Sandusky scandal. After looking at the talk page for the article, it appears this was settled years ago, but he's back still making the same type of edits he was warned about. I'm not sure what to do next so I thought I'd ask you for help. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look. Not sure what to suggest -- looks like a (mere) content dispute at this point, so the usual
WP:DR paths would be the only method at this stage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks. I'm hoping that I've handled it right so far. Rockypedia (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss. I started a discussion on the Paterno talk page. I'm not trying to cause a "problem" or engage in "whitewashing." We should try to find the most accurate explanation. Srj4000 (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More twaddle
There is information at the TP and at BLPN which explain quite well why your reverts are BLP violations. Your behavior has become very disruptive, and appears to have developed into hounding. (started at Griffin, followed me to No-go and Emerson, excluding noticeboards)
Steven Emerson - you had no involvement there before I started editing, but have been disruptive to me and others.
[55] <---- Edit summary when I asked you to stop (→PLEASE STOP the spurious claims and personal attacks...: not likely)
[56] <---- taunting when I simply tried to stop him from casting aspersions
[57] <---- wrongly quoted policy, refused to self-revert
[58] <---- combative with use of profanity, taunting
There are many more, but I will not waste anymore time belaboring the point. If you believe ANI is the place for us to sort out your behavior, then perhaps that is what needs to happen. Atsme☯Consult 17:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've tried this crap before, and my answer is the same. If you don't remember, then search. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you being so rude and disruptive, and why are you hawking my edits? I haven't done anything to you that even comes close to what you've been doing to me. Your only argument is
WP:ICANTHEARYOU I have simply asked you to stop hounding and casting aspersions. If you agree with what I've stated at Griffin, fine - we disagree. It does not warrant what you are doing, and the above diffs demonstrate a very disruptive pattern. The only response you give me in return is, "You've tried this crap before"? That is not acting in GF. Atsme☯Consult 19:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
A post like the one you put here is extremely rude. So just stop. If you decide to take it to ANI, I'll be very interested to see how that goes, the scrutiny your own edits will then receive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have done everything humanly possible to avoid bothering admins over your childish nonsense, which explains why I included all the diffs above. Don't mistake my kindness for weakness or that I actually believe my edits will not withstand the most intense scrutiny. I will continue reading the results at various noticeboard discussions, RfCs, AEs, etc. particularly those regarding contentious statements in BLPs, and you should do the same. When all is said and done, the best possible result would be a valuable learning experience for all involved. In the interim, please stop hawking my user contributions and disrupting my editing experience on WP - consider it a self imposed iBan. Atsme☯Consult 20:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Childish nonsense"? Okay, so now you're into personal attacks. The articles I have been participating in have all been discussed at public noticeboards or directly related, and that's how I've arrived to them -- so you can put a stop to the the accusation of "hawking". I have every intention of continuing to express my concerns about your editing as necessary and to express disagreement with you where I do in fact disagree with you. You're done here, further posts will be reverted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably one of the worst Dunning-Kruger cases I've ever seen. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Garrison. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
moving carmel page
There should be discussion about this. You can't just move it b/c you decided so. Ashtul (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should we change every village in the area name into 'blah-blah (Palestinian Village)'? Please revert!
You are welcome to check my edits but your insistence of reverting every change I make is starting to look like
WP:HOUNDing. Ashtul (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
University Bible Fellowship article vandalism
Hey Nomo would you submit the University Bible Fellowship page to be locked please? It has been getting anonymous section blanking/vandalism multiple times. Thanks Bkarcher (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Philip Benedict
Hi Nomo, the latest revisions to the Phil Benedict page (which you deleted) were entirely based on third party sources. There wasn't a single citation of his CV. There were links to two different University websites (one in Europe, another in America) and two references from third party University Press books. All this in two short sentences. Perhaps you didn't see the updates before you deleted it? Either way, I would appreciate it if you would revert to the latest, update section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. These are books not written by Benedict. They are books in which Benedict is mentioned as a third party. Isn't this a secondary source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were two books. But there were other sources that didn't meet secondary, and they were pertinent to the more general point of the paragraph. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So why not challenge those two other secondary sources -- none of them were written by Benedict, by the way? Why not take it to the talk page to discuss your perspective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:854D:44EE:51D8:7641 (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ephraim Padwa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dispatches. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listing for Steve Morgan (Businessman)
Good afternoon Nomoskedasticity
I have been referred to your user profile by Yun Shui who responded to my email to Wikipedia about the removal of information I am trying to update on Steve Morgan's page. I understand that some of what I tried to submit apparently didn't fit the criteria of Wikipedia however I'd like to ask why everything was deleted when I had backed all that was written up with independent references and sources? Look forward to your response and maybe some pointers as to how to amend his listing successfully? Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryJane263 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded on your talk page with links to the policies you'll want to get to know -- particularly
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 March 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Discussion about you at Callanecc's TP
Regarding your recent edits at Griffin Talk. Atsme☯Consult 21:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request for mediation rejected
The
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
Dreadstar: Well I'm puzzled. I thought it was focused entirely on content. I'd be grateful if you could point out what part didn't adhere to the stricture. I had even written a reply to your post saying that what I had added was intended to adhere to it -- thus if I had failed it would be for lack of understanding, not for lack of trying. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
"' an editor takes the view that.." is not focused on content. I know it's small, but it's a slippery slope, and one that's easily avoided.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised
Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here
.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means
. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Why did you revert the Stephen M. Cohen page. The information is not accurate. Hiring persons to write articles that a court of law has determine to be fraudulent speaks for itself.
Cohen
This needs to go to full arbitration --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessamx (talk • contribs) 09:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You made a massive revert that for the life of me, even after several minutes of spreadsheet analysis, I can not figure out. The edit summary merely says
"That edit was not an improvement"
I'm tempted to revert your revert and invite you to then do it again with a specific summary that allows others to assess your work. But first I thought I'd ask you here. Specify please
(A) As used in your edit summary, to which edit does "that edit" refer?
(B) If you reverted to some old version, which one?
(C) Anything else that will help me understand what you did?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I reverted Scalhotrod's edit to the lead: [59]. It provided a definitively less informative version. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know they're teaching something called
New math
, but can you help me explain the byte count balance?
(cur | prev) 18:08, April 11, 2015 Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) . . (36,656 bytes) (+2,561) . . (rv -- that edit was not an improvement)
(cur | prev) 17:42, April 11, 2015 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs) . . (34,095 bytes) (+390) . . (→Blogging: 1 of 3 most central websites)
(cur | prev) 17:23, April 11, 2015 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs) . . (33,705 bytes) (0) . . (put the blog's reception stuff in the same place)
(cur | prev) 15:23, April 11, 2015 Scalhotrod (talk | contribs) . . (35,130 bytes) (+14) . . (→top: attempting some cleanup and better organization)
TOTALS
-By Scalhotrod -1411 bytes
-By Nomoskedasticity +2561 bytes
Result, Nomoskedasticity added 1150 bytes, which is not merely a revert
Please self-revert your action and then try again.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
All I did was restore the lede that existed prior to the edit by Scalhotrod that I linked here. I don't see a need to self-revert this. Scalhotrod made a major change to the lead that included deleting several sources; I think this was undesirable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for explaining the edit after the fact. As he had done a lot of edits in the body in the same single edit, just saying you were reverting "that edit" was quite unhelpful; however, you're not taking offense to my asking here is greatly appreciated!!
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks. I agree my edit summary wasn't great. But it's frustrating to deal with such major edits, esp when an article has gotten controversial... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm grateful for the copy ed squad efforts of Scalhotrod, I agree massive single edits are very hard to vet.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Hoxby/Rothstein
Hi Nomoskedasticity,
Forgive me but I am a newbie at Wikipedia Edits and I am writing a paper on Caroline Hoxby for school. I have come across some of your edits on her page. I completely agree that there is a need to discuss the Hoxby/Rothstein controversy. You have provided some links to articles that I do not have access to. I am really intrigued by your findings and knowledge of the situation. Would you mind emailing me copies of those articles? It would be a great help for my paper and I would also like to contribute on the Living Biography. Thank you for your help!EETucker (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert the edits to the PCU Page? Please see the article showing that the NY Times article was frivolous. Info relating to the Axact article has since been removed from the Ny York Times and Forbes due to Defamation of Character and unreliable information-->http://www.axact.com/defamation-response/ Axact Lawyers contacted Forbes and the NY Times to remove info as the information was false and had no real sources
No, still there, [60]. If you carry on removing this information, you'll lose the ability to edit the article at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, added. So far it looks like only adding the reference, not adding dodgy content. No doubt that will change... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked my post to make blue links! I've put a note on the talk page about the blog (which in this case is used as a source for a BLP).
I have added to the Talk page for the Alan Dershowitz article an invitation to you (and others) to provide feedback, commentary, analysis, suggestions for improvement, etc., as opposed to wholesale removal of the new section I added about Dershowitz' views on administrative detention. Absent that, the appearance to me is that you are objecting to any reference to Dershowitz' published article in Commentary on the subject of administrative detention, or the responses to it, also published in Commentary, as well as referenced in the personal memoir I have cited and quoted from. If that is your view, I disagree, given Dershowitz' position as a public figure and public intellectual, whose views have been widely published and discussed for decades. If that is not your view, and you have more specific objections, please clarify them so the consensus you have called for can be achieved. I hope to see something from you on the Talk page I can work with.Improvethewiki (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A friendly question re:
WP:MFD
Hi Nomo. Would you have any objection if I nominated this page which inappropriately targets you, at
WP:MFD? The user has been banned for some time and as you may know, after an email incident and couple subsequent socking vios is unlikely to return in that identity, and even if he did, this page violates policy. However, if you want to leave it, that's fine, and if you prefer to nominate it yourself, that's fine too. Thanks, and best wishes to you, Jusdafax 10:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
Currently listed at MfD, you may want to weigh in. Glad you approve. Hopefully the last step in a long process. Jusdafax 08:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heading?
It's already at AE.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I know -- but Arbcomm would be an entirely different matter, likely leading to new sanctions and topic bans. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the arbs accept the case? After all, the dispute over Watts/WUWT is entirely about the climate change dimension and DS/AE is already in place. It just has to be effectively used and rigorously enforced, so what new business would there be for the arbs to debate?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
Hi Nomoskedasticity, The EU Business School disambiguation page is red lettered. Is this the norm? I wasn't sure and was wondering if it can be retained as such. When you have the time could you have a look? It would be appreciated. Thanks! Audit Guy (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the "other uses" line can be deleted -- it makes no sense to have a link to a non-existent disambiguation page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought....many thanks! Audit Guy (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion about the article's ability to stay as a Featured Article. You were involved, so I invite you to join in. --George Ho (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's on my watch list. That makes messages of this sort unnecessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Sewell resigns and faces police inquiry after 'snorting cocaine with prostitutes'
Is the headline for the story involved. I fear your claim that I "rewrote" the headline is wrong, and the claim that I misspelled the name is also wrong. I would ask that you note your edit summaries Wikipedia editors have no business pretending to be headline writers for newspapers they're not employed by and nor should they introduce spelling errors into people's names...) appear to be simple ad hominem attacks here.
[61] makes the headline absolutely clear -- I would kindly ask you to apologize for your attack on me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't misquote me, Collect: I did not use the word "rewrote". And in fact you did misspell this person's name. Please show more care in regard to BLPs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then what did you mean by me "pretending" to be the headline writer? And (expletive) - did you actually read the headline spelling of his name on the Telegram web site headline before accusing ME of being the person who misspelled his name? Really? And somehow I am the person who wrote the web page for The Telegram? Really? You are digging your attack deeper and deeper here. All I ask for is a simple apology for the edit summaries. Collect (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know perfectly well that you altered the headline, presenting it differently from the true version appearing on the newspaper's website. I really don't see what you hope to gain by pretending otherwise. As for misspellings, you've now added another one: it's the Telegraph, not the Telegram. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. My uncle worked for the Telegram-Gazette and I suppose that stuck in my mind as I am not a fan of newspapers with sensational headlines. Before I fixed the headline, it was claimed to be "title=Lord Sewel resigns after 'snorting cocaine with two prostitutes " which I trust you agree was actually wrong as that was not the headline. Would you have kept the earlier incorrect version of the headline? And do you concede that the misspelling was by the Telegraph? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I'm not sure how or why I was chosen to be the policeman of these edit summaries, which is a nomination I decline; but I will say I am not sure why this article would need to contain a quotation from a newspaper headline. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that Collects sometimes informs you about situations he doesn't like; no idea why he has chosen you for this burden. As for the article: it doesn't contain (as part of the text) a quotation from a newspaper headline; it only contains the newspaper headline in the reference/footnote. The key is, the headline is now given correctly, as opposed to the incorrect version Collect had entered. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the entire first part of the headline verbatim as being sufficient to identify the source - until then an absolutely incorrect version was in the cite. And I note you still do not accept that I spelt the name precisely as the headline spelt the name - and thus I did not make an error on it. Cheers. And by the way, I am not a plural last I checked. Collect (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dry duck
I suggest closing your eyes and thinking of water, ducks and backs. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 15:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Singer's talk page discussion
On Singer's talk page discussion where would you suggest I give my input? I was going to add it to the "Threaded discussion" section but then I would be replicating what was already above, as I would have again gone through and explained each of my contributions. Thanks, Meatsgains (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Regnerus Article
Hello I have made additional comment/suggestion on this article, could you please review and comment? Thanks... 24.92.249.215 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my edit without contributing to the talk page, then advise me to use the talk page. I already explained my view in the talk page so therefore you should go there and talk before reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityside189 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right -- just ran out of time earlier. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Hi, I am the mediator for a case that you were listed in, please come to this page: Thanks
You deleted material from Susya while a discussion is taking place on the talk page. Please join it before you delete again. Settleman (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shapps
The source very carefully avoids accusing Shapps of any wrongdoing ... which we ought well follow. The current use makes it quite appear that the living person operated an illegal pyramid scheme. Which is not claimed in the source given. No charges brought, and so no reason to maintain this bit in a BLP IMO. Collect (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Collect
Might be wise to back off Collect for a while, he's feeling persecuted and there are lots of eyes on him right now. Just my $0.02. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting hairs
[62] That article that was linked to by the OP uses Nungesser's name a plethora of times. We can't use someone's name when it was mentioned in the
New York Times? Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Have a look at the FAQs at the top of the talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whitaker rv
I'm not going to argue it, but it's a third source used to cite the same sentence, which already has two sources attached to it. I don't see it as supplemental, either - the source consists of the same information (which the writer is summarizing), followed by the writer's opinion piece about "the enablers" (unnamed) needing to be held accountable. There's nothing new or different about it that is of encyclopedic value - it's OVERCITE (and source dumping) to show that quantity of rehashed information in local news = notability. I'd personally rather somebody dealt with the lack of bio in a BLP, and the article creator's reversion of biographical data as "unsourced hagiography" from ASU's website. MSJapan (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding word choice, "refute" and "rebut" are synonymous in this case, refute being "to deny a statement or accusation" and "rebut" being "to claim an accusation is false." The result is the same, and in fact they are listed as synonyms in their respective entries. MSJapan (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Refute is more definitive, and so in this case not appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would love your help at [New Israel Fund]
There's some serious tendentious editing take place. I'm trying to stay out of edit warring myself. I'm hoping that your attention and experience might help. Thanks. Perplexed566 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration amendment request archived
The
ping in reply) 03:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Jeremy Corbyn
Thanks very much for your private message to me. I've tried to send a PM back to you, but it doesn't seem to work. I really don't have an "agenda": the section is seriously unbalanced by many quotes from supporters, but only one from a critic, as I've tried to make clear in my reply to another Editor on the Jeremy Corbyn:Talk page, who also objected to the addition of critical quotes. There need to be both supportive and critical quotes - not a surfeit of supportive ones, with critical ones deleted or moved.
The section really needs to include voices from all sides - otherwise it looks as if we're merely trying to create a fan page. Unlike the Editor I was replying to, I haven't deleted or moved ANY of the several quotes in support of the subject of the article - merely added quotes from those providing criticism. Please do everything you can to help ensure that there are quotes from BOTH sides of the discussion, too. I've removed the quotes re. Yvette Cooper's allegations of anti-Semitic connections, as I hadn't realised that the quote might contravene a Wiki consensus. By the way, in case you wondered, I wasn't the Editor who added a trivial point that another Editor objected to! Please help me, if you could, to make the section more balanced. Thanks again for contacting me. Zhu Haifeng (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be mistaken -- I did not send you a private message. I don't mind your posting here, but discussion about the article should take place on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nova Science Publishers
Please stop deleting content about Nova Science Publishers which is true. Read the articles that have been referenced. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelAdamSmith (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shaun King
Thanks for this edit [63], which I beleive is the right course of action. However there seems to be some difficulty making the removal of that paragraph stick, so probably the most helpful thing you could do is comment on this RFC here: [64]
Cheers, 22:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
One revert
I made one, one, revert. That is nowhere near 3RR. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nomoskedasticity - I see trouble ahead in this section of the Jeremy Corbyn article, so perhaps best steer clear being a "hot topic" - it is certainly not worth engaging in a contre-temp; but you are right in your last comment that "it was more concise" but "it wasn't more accurate" than my amendment. However, I have improved the language for all to understand and Wiki no doubt wishes to convey the correct info and a balanced article, consistent with other articles about British politicians. Please comment on my talk page accordingly. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
September 2015
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Jeremy Corbyn. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page
.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.
Should probably take
Imperatrix Mundi 14:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Since I've invoked BLP in good faith, I'm not inclined to worry about this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect, but you can be both in good faith and- wrong.
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at
Wikipedia:Arbitration guide
may be of use.
Thanks, 05:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting back to the image
As per the discussion here thank you for reverting the edit back to the one standing at the time the consensus discussion was open. Please see the aforementioned discussion for more information about this. Thanks again! :) 'Olowe2011Talk 22:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Breitbart
Stop reverting my edits. You can't rewrite history. 161.202.72.171 (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
September 2015
Your recent editing history at Jeremy Corbyn shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
'Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Re: re-adding the main display image after copyright discussions for that image are not concluded and in contrary to the current restrictions for editing images on the page (1RR.) 'Olowe2011Talk 00:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article you created and where you just reverted my edits is not balanced - you seem to omit facts which are positive about the subject judging even by the references you cite. I reverted your edit. Part (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add well-sourced "positive" material. But deleting something and calling it an "update" is not okay. Further discussion on the article talk page, please. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not only delete but also added information. Again you chose only one side of things. Part (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
OMICS Group Inc article was created as per talk page [65], and conferences sources [66], [67], [68] and their parent company sources [69] are reliable, recent and well established articles from reputed news magazine. Dentking07 (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
A cup of coffee for you!
Thanks for your long history of resolving problems, at the BLP noticeboard and elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMICS Publishing Group (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Amortias (T)(C) 20:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Our site has lots of negative things. I just added positive things and refreshed a part of negative things without having references. James Ahn at [email protected]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahnubf (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:COI; if you want to edit at Wikipedia, you'll need to become acquainted with the policies and guidelines here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Nomoskedasticity, would you revert or correct Janhubf's vandalism on the University Bible Fellowship article? Bkarcher (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, someone else did the revert. Thanks! Bkarcher (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
different case (and the inevitable Wikipedia edit-warring is already underway) but I did find some solace in this quote from a recent Slate story: "It took a jab from male comedian Hannibal Buress to get the public to fully grapple with allegations against Cosby that had been around for a decade ... Outrageous though that may be, a criminal conviction that allowed us to stop using the word 'alleged' to qualify abuses detailed by more than 50 women would be a decisive validation of stories too easily brushed aside for far too long." I can't tell you it's been easy, but I'm learning to welcome justice when and where I find it. Happy New Year! Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
Dear Nomoskedasticity,
I appreciate your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. From the Talk page on the article Ariel Fernandez of which I am the subject, I became aware of continuous efforts by editor Molevol1234 to include mentioning of questioned papers that I have authored. The questioned papers have not been retracted and no wrongdoing on my behalf has ever been determined. As I learned from the Talk page, in such a case, according to Wikipedia policy, reputable secondary sources justifying notability for inclusion would need to be included. The blog Retraction Watch does not constitute such a reputable secondary source because it is a self-published blog, as several editors have noted in the archived discussions (BLP:SPS). As I understand, Wikipedia policy forbids SPS for BLPs. Frankly, to avoid more controversy, I think it would make everyone happier if only the first brief and neutral paragraph of the Career section is retained in the article, as in earlier versions. Thank you for your attention.Ariel Fernandez Ph D (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you Nomoskedasticity for all your help. Northernva (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request for your feedback, on an AE regarding ECIG Articles.
Not sure if you are aware, but as far as I know there is a limit of one revert per day on the Jeremy Corbyn article. I see you made two edits which might be construed as reverts today, so you should be careful of that. --ℕℱ 21:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- forgot about that. I've self-reverted; of course, the other editor should now do that as well... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DRN notification: JDL
Please see this DRN case, where you were named among involved users. --Wiking (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is required
Hey there, saw your addition to Ariel Fernandez. Currently, there is duscussion on the article's talk page about the edits you made, and a consensus has not been reached. SPERs are not to be implemented until consensus is reached. In addition, you cannot add unsourced content in attempt to get more refs or content, which it seemed like you were doing for a moment. Thank you for understanding, and please give you input on the articles talk page so that consensus can be reached. --allthefoxes(Talk) 16:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it wrong here. The only person objecting is a banned sockpuppet. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Paul Singer.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — FoCuScontribs; talk to me! 19:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Questions regarding your reversion of my edit to the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration
How is my edit a clear violation of the conditions for editing in the I/P area, if this is really about whether one of the areas that came after the OETA is called one thing or another (NOT referring to a current war between various areas)? Additionally, in your view, is it appropriate for me to receive a lengthy ban from editing because of my numerous edits to the article?
I don't mind the edits you're doing in the lead. I'm just confused as to why my copyedits were reverted as well. I'm sincerely curious whether you found them wrong or something. Regards,
Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
My apologies -- on reflection, it would have been almost as easy to simply delete the paragraph rather than reverting to an earlier version. I'll be more careful about it in the future. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Nomoskedasticity. I knew your edit was in good faith.
Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep your tantrum to a dull roar and we'll see whether I'm bluffing or not.
This isn't a schoolyard and the loudest shouted voice doesn't win. HalfShadow 08:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 11 March 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Request for mediation rejected
The
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
I filed a complaint [Collusion, Intimidation and ad hominem attacks at Stephen Sizer] however, as you are not one of the accused, and as your name is only mentioned in the context of a constructive edit on the Sizer page, I did not think to add a notice to your talk page as the discussion is not about you. But, I think as a matter of courtesy I should probably notify you anyway albeit a few days later. Clivel 0 (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ARBPIA
Nomoskedasticity, please notice that I deleted the ARBPIA warning you added to Talk:Palestinian minhag. Please note the reason I specify in the edit summary: Unless some central consensus established this, we can not decide that just the word "Palestinian" creates a relation to the IP-conflict.
Please explain why you undid my deletion without explaining your reasons here? Debresser (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Warring
Your recent editing history at Panama Papers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SaintAviatorlets talk 06:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's precious -- you have reverted more than I have, and yet you warn me? Never mind, useful: it establishes your own awareness of the rule... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about precious. Whatever. Three big ones for you, in a short space. Two for me. This establishes you are warned. SaintAviatorlets talk 07:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of the slightest curiosity: I know about the two at 6:23 and 6:53 -- but what is the third "big one"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6.30 Ah you slipped up due to a glitch, it happens. Not signed in? [71] Admin would have to dig, SaintAviatorlets talk 08:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? Are you sure you're not editing under the influence or something? On second thought, don't bother answering -- the situation is clear. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no glitch. Revision 714030327 is still in the history. He only made two reverts. This is a pointless discussion anyway, but it doesn't seem nice to wrongly accuse other editors of breaking 3RR. JollyΩJanner 08:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its only pointless if your not clever enough to see the anomaly right in front of you. What appeared was a 2nd revert before the 3rd, under his name as a special contributer. Hence the words on the edit history. Note the previous revert of same bytes was by JJ, so Ns name should not be there. Do you get it yet. So yes its Odd SaintAviatorlets talk 09:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing odd. No third revert by me. Let it go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think you did 3RR, but there was a glitch making it look like you did, and a bit of it is still there. Your name. It should not be there. Jolly Janners name should be there. Turn your sleepy brains on. Under the influence? SaintAviatorlets talk 09:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No -- there's no anomaly, and no-one but you will think there is one. Best stop digging the hole now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(sighs, shakes head, mutters 'what could cause that?') SaintAviatorlets talk 02:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
History and Beall's List
Hello! Can you please explain why you revert my edit on this section? It's clearly outside scope of the article, and is better included in the page about Beall.Megs (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article titles clearly reference predatory & open access publishing. Not sure why it seems outside scope. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Collect essay; second bite at the cherry
You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Formal mediation has been requested
The
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 June 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Request for mediation rejected
The
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
There is no edit war at all. Please, avoid any threats.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary Sanctions
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The
discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here
.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
In short, yes that is how they are supposed to work.
In long: Where there is a dispute over an article subject to discretionary sanctions, the template is used to warn an editor *where you think it is likely they will continue to edit-war/continue the dispute* in order to precede sanctions. You cant be punished for something you are not 'officially' aware of, so you are required to be notified officially of the sanctions so if the problem continues, they can be pointed at and said 'Look, they were aware of them!'. I make no comment on if it was deserved or not, just that that is how they are meant to be used. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm -- "where you think it is likely they will continue to edit-war/continue the dispute" -- the rub there is that I haven't edited the article even once, so there are no grounds for thinking I might "continue" to edit-war. It seems pretty gratuitous... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is odd, unless you have actually edited the article I cant see why anyone would template you over it. You were thinking about editwarring on it, wernt you! *shrug* But yes that is an odd use of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thus my question on AE... Anyway, thanks for the comments. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "close the RfC"
But your asides and snark over the years are clear. Collect (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see -- you just tried to pre-empt it, then?? Not sure what the point was -- you surely knew it would be reverted. What a time-waster... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid threatening people with edit-war. Any kind of fair judge in any dispute would give both sides a warning but your edit war notice only appeared on my page and not on the other user "Ntb613"'s ,who reverted the page more than me, page. It seems like you are taking sides and threatening people, which I don't think you should do. Judging from above it seems like you have been doing that a while. Masterofthename (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In case Wikipedia software failed to convey my ping for you, FYI I mentioned you at Arbitration Enforcement here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1 RR
Hi, sorry about that, I did not realize a tag was an edit. I just went to self revert but got a message saying that edit could not be undone so I do not know how I can correct it now. lease advise and thank you very much for bring this to my attention. KINGOFTO (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else has reversed the changes you made, so no need for further action now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I happened to stubble upon your User Page and noticed that you have two similar Georgia's. For the U.S. State of Georgia, did you meant to use the
is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Consensus on terms 'far-right' and 'conservative' not reached
Hi, I have reverted your edit on the
Breitbart article until consensus is reached. If you wish to join the ongoing discussion please do so on the Talk page. Thanks Phatwa (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Notice of Talk seeking consensus on page you arbitrated in the past
Sure, but that's what *you* need to be reminded of. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You made an edit and were reverted. So you should discuss, not repeat your edit. But you don't. Which is why you should be reminded of
WP:BRD, as I did. Why do you think I should be reminded? Debresser (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't play stupid. The photo was in the article for a long time, and the removal was done without an edit summary. Removing it is the action that needs to be discussed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it was marked out without noting that in the edit summary. That doesn't negate the fact that for the last half year the picture hasn't been on the page. You are restoring it against that consensus, so the burden of proof is on you.
I have also replied to your arguments on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"That consensus"? What consensus? It was included for longer than half a year -- so an underhanded removal isn't going to sway us here. But by all means carry on making silly arguments -- easier that way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a veteran editor, I will not post a template here. Suffice it to remind you that you are edit warring. Your changes to a consensus version are disruptive, and I ask you to stop now, or face the consequences. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Please do not refer to other editor's as misognyists for any reason. That is not an acceptable approach to a collaborative environment and does not represent the Wikipedia way of doing things. Heated things get said in heated moments, but, it is your responsibility to keep a calm level head and try for discussion. Where discussion fails you may take the issue to
) 19:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
"Misogyny" refers to the contributions of the editor, not the editor himself. So we're good. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
December 2016
Your recent editing history at Haredi Judaism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Going to the limit of 3RR, I see...Debresser (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no -- I've done two reverts in the last 24-hour period. So your warning is a mystery. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are edit warring. Is that a mystery to you? Debresser (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My darling Debresser -- I can match your aggressiveness exactly as you please. You surely understand I don't intend to be the פְרַיֵר, nu? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, I happen to think you are the aggressive one here. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course -- that's part of your aggressiveness... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Sungenis
Please discuss on Talk page.Joe6Pack (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to engage in discussion on Robert Sungenis? Joe6Pack (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth do you mean? I replied to you yesterday! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Formal mediation has been requested
The
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 May 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
No -- it's just an opinion. To be a threat, there has to be some indication that an action of some sort is contemplated/intended. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request for mediation rejected
The
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
Regarding this revert of yours. What is not policy about lack of relevance? Don't demand policies to be quoted. There is nothing anywhere that says policies must be quoted by name. An explanation from which it follows that a certain policy is relevant, is more than enough. Demanding it to be quoted is nothing but disruptive. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to describe me as being disruptive, then you had better get yourself to a noticeboard and make a case for me to be sanctioned. Otherwise you can piss right off and not post here again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at
This is to inform you that the request for arbitration in which you were named in a party has been declined by the committee and closed. GoldenRing (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
July 2017
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jose Antonio Vargas, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. THE DIAZtalk • contribs 14:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Warning about reverting BLP violations at Jared Taylor
You have been warned. I'm pretty sure you already know about BLP DS but if not, let me know, and I'll post it here for you. We do not have a good history, so please keep your distance. I strongly advise you to tread carefully about casting aspersions against me, even in the form of innuendo as you did here.Atsme📞📧 22:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
History? You don't say... In any event -- please be sure to make good on your warnings; wouldn't want it to be empty bluster, now... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mandatory notice
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The
discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here
.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Why do you always want to start an edit war? This should stop else all wikipedia editors will start a campaign against you Simon T8W (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
October 2017
I have removed material from
reliable sources
, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written pursuant to
I left a note on the closing administrator's talk page about this AFD, noting that no one offered the OTRS ticket where Nusbacher reliably confirmed that it was the real life Nusbacher requesting deletion.
You are the first contributor in the AFD to say how you knew Nusbacher herself requested deletion. You linked to the now deleted talk page.
Can I assume you are not aware of Nusbacher using OTRS? Do you remember whether the claimant used an anonymous IP? Do you remember why you found their claim convincing?
As I said to the closing administrator, we should never simply accept, at face value, that a claimant is who they said they were -- unless their identity was confirmed by OTRS. Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember anything about this article -- it was too long ago. Sorry... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you tag teaming...
...to keep challenged material in the lede? Not a good idea. There are plenty of criticisms against Rachel Maddow that rightly so are not included in the lede of her BLP and it should be the model we follow for Hannity since the two are competitors. Atsme📞📧 20:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Nomoskedasticity. Voting in the
2017 Arbitration Committee elections
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Your recent editing history at Dartmouth College shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. An experienced editor has made a change that is common usage in American english. The edit summary establishes edit warring is underway. Please comply with the challenge in the edit summary or cease. The next step is intervention. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very pleased to see you are aware of this rule -- you'll no doubt refrain from breaking it, then. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiwarrior
Wikiwarrior
Hi, I think that your cutting of my addition to the article on Sholom Rubashkin is unwarranted. If you have an issue with what I wrote, write a rebuttal. Do not delete it like an intolerant, illiberal censor. SMendel (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABLE event in Reade's career. Likewise the fact that her best known sentencing was commuted by the President of the United States, who also took the unusual step of releasing a significant statement regarding the commutation and the injustice of the sentence. Winchester2313 (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Discussion of articles on article talk-pages, please. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
May 2018
Tim Hayward (academic) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
A barnstar for you!
The Resilient Barnstar
Thank you for your work on McGimpsey's page. 13ab37 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3RR
I'm at 3RR thanks to that editor's decision to whitewash the article piecemeal, and I'd rather not have the argument about subsequent reverts that happens whenever this exception is brought up. So could you restore the version before they started in on the article? Then we can deal with it at talk. Thanks.
Tell me all about it. 16:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called
Thank you, that's very kind -- I am now apprised of the sanction... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Nomoskedasticity. Voting in the
2018 Arbitration Committee elections
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
WP:V. Please also notice that more than one editor has reverted you already, so you should really consider establishing a consensus on the talkpage before you make additional reverts. You may be recommended for administrative sanctioning, should you continue to be disruptive. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wikitam331 (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vulture capitalist Paul Singer
Hi Nomoskedasticity, I saw your good work to make sure that Paul Singer stays exposed as vulture capitalist. But you deleted the facts that he is a jewish vulture capitalist who stole money from Argentina and Peru. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2dHa Moo (talk • contribs) 15:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm not a vile anti-Semite, obvs...Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
No detail appears available on this alleged organisation, and I cannot see how it meets GNG. If the situation is as stated in one reference, there could be a public-service element to covering it, but that is not Wikipedia's function.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackpool University until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SeoR (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused as to why you reverted additions I made to singer Brian Evans Wikipedia page. After seeing him on a news show, on "Reelz TV," I ventured to update his page with many items not listed on that page. I thought that was the point. I don't even know the guy. I spent hours learning how to update the page, a page that Wikipedia itself was requesting more information about, and then you just deleted hours of my research and work as if it were nothing. Everything I added was well sourced information, and everything I deleted, by Wikipedia's standards, was correctly done. It makes no sense to me, and certainly doesn't inspire me to continue to focus on any individual to update the page. You're not allowing the history of this man to be properly and honestly displayed. It makes no sense to me. I won't be editing anyone else's page after this experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlantaResearcher (talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Goodwin
Hello. I see you have previously contributed to the Talk page on the Fred Goodwin article. May I ask for your views on a piece I have added relating to his role in the BCCI liquidation. Thanks
Lord Mauleverer (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Camarena
Interestingly, a lot has happened in the last year, with the US Justice Department now re-interviewing old witnesses who... have a lot to say it seems [73][74][75]. -Darouet (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the
Carl Benjamin's rape joke".The discussion is about the topic Carl Benjamin. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Amaroq64 (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Please remove personal comment
Disagreeing with an editor is fine but a comment such as this, "I hope the women..."[[76]] is not. Springee (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced it with the RPA tag. Springee (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why open an RFC
Can you explain why we would need two concurring discussions to happen simultaneously about the Edward Kosner matter? The discussion at BLPN was started no more than 12 hours ago, and has a wide variety of participants. Would you please consider suspending that RFC until this other discussion concludes (if not canceling it entirely, as there will likely be enough discussion at BLPN to determine whether a consensus can be found in this matter)? At this rate, I will be unable to catch an hours worth of sleep... and I'm not sure many of the participants want to have to repeat themselves 3 times over. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I explained why: it's obvious (to me, anyway) that unstructured discussions will not lead to consensus. What we need is a formal discussion that will (eventually) be closed by an uninvolved admin who decides what the consensus is. This is entirely normal... BTW: nothing now prevents you from getting some sleep! Lo aleicha ligmor ([77])... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BLPN is the site of many formal discussions, and I fail to believe an uninvolved admin will not be closing that thread in due time (it's only been 12 hours). Discussions do not have to run in poll format to be considered structured. The point of that noticeboard is the same as any on the site: to find consensus in related matters. What is the urgency for this RFC? If you can't state one, I'm going to take it upon myself to suspend this clear
It's really not up to you -- and it won't work because I haven't contributed to the discussion in any other venue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm tired. I don't intend to come off in a snippy manner. I'm just imploring you to suspend having two concurrent discussions of the same matter in two separate venues. Can you please consider suspension until the BLPN discussion concludes? It would be a mighty good showing of good-faith on your part to do so, and as far as I'm aware there isn't any urgent need to have the RFC before the BLPN discussion can finish. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The essence of the song you linked me to, gets at the very nature of why I won't allow myself to sleep if I feel something is not being done properly: "V'lo ata ben chorin" - (But neither are you free to desist from it). Please show your good-faith here, and allow one discussion at a time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the thing is, this "don't have two discussions" line is demonstrably silly. The issue was being discussed at the article talk page. The editor who took it to BLPN started a second discussion. Putting an RfC on the article talk page does not amount to "starting a second discussion" in this context. There's no guidance suggesting that I needed to wait here; starting an RfC under circumstances like this is entirely normal (far from "disgraceful behavior", in your words). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsley Fletcher
I noticed you reverted changes on
Bosso Adamtey I, I made months of research before attempting the edits, will you please let me know why you think the changes are wrong, I would love to reason with you on this matter. Sincerely, User:Ml4lyfe 16:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The main thing is, you deleted properly sourced information. There's no good reason to do that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to thank you for reverting me as I didn't realise the reinstated edits were not the subject of the RFC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saida Muna Tasneem
Hello. I happened to pass by BLPN to read an unrelated subsection, then I noticed in another subsection that someone who claims to be a Bangladeshi diplomat wanted to have some information removed from
My edit to the article is the sort of edit I would have made without being asked by anyone associated with the subject. I learned about the article via the BLPN post -- but I didn't do it as any sort of favor to the person who posted. That information was not sufficiently pertinent to the
WP:TOPIC to justify including the details I removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The person involved in the controversy was the husband of the female diplomat, so that could still be related. And also, the citation to The Guardian was removed, even if it was discussing the same topic as the citation to BBC News. Would the average reader understand the euphemism without context?
This is now shifting into discussion of how to edit the article (rather than my own reasons for doing what I did) -- so it should happen on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Mail
Why do you say that me asking for a perfectly legitimate edit to be made, is not going to get me anywhere? There should be absolutely nothing stopping anyone from making a legitimate edit on Wikipedia, or so I have been told. There is an open discussion where you can contribute your views, if you think it would be an illegitimate edit. Telling me to start a discussion that neither you or anyone else is going to participate in, is not how to register that view, it is obstruction. I will not be dissuaded from making that edit, by mere obstruction.
You should try paying attention to what multiple editors have been telling you. That edit request function can be used successfully only when there is consensus for the requested edit. It doesn't matter how many times you re-activate it -- no-one is going to adopt the edit unless/until it is evident there is consensus for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, I have been paying attention, it is you who has been ignoring me, and deliberately it seems. To repeat myself, please explain whether you agree or disagree with the following statements: Evidence of obstruction is not evidence of legitimate disagreement. I have started the required discussion, it has generated zero responses, not even from the single person who has previously denied the requested edit on grounds other than an absence of consensus. That resulting silence is now a consensus, since Wikipedia would cease to function if you could deny any edit by making one single dissenting comment, and then walking away, if nobody else commented (especially if the reason nobody else commented is simply that they don't want the edit made, but would rather not say why with respect to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia). This is not how you are meant to register opposition to a proposed edit on Wikipedia. It is the responsibility of dissenters to explain their oppostion now that I have been forced to start a completely unnecessary discussion, and they have not done so. I do not need to gain explicit consensus for the idea that a source has to be provided to back a claim, nor any of the other perfectly sounds reasons I gave for why that edit should be made.
OK, well obviously you don't want to answer. I will have the last word, if only to document these four rationales here, the totality of which is something you apparently think is a persuasive reason to prevent someone making an edit that is entirely uncontroversial and entirely necessary....
"The claims are supported by both sources and the article itself" - a statement of blind assertion, by someone who has flatly refused to provide evidence this is true, either when they said it, and again when specifically asked. This statement was also copy-pasted to respond to two other requests, making it clear the person probably didn't even read them (the other two being about sources, singlular, and about attribution and accuracy, not simply support)
"If fellow editors disagree with your changes, then yes, they are controversial no matter how right you think you are" - another statement of blind assertion, by a person who has shown absolutely no interest in the fact the supposed disagreement is itself, by one single editor, is mere blind assertion.
"Requests have been answered, even if not to your satisfsaction" - an arrogant brush off, by someone refusing to engage with the clearly stated reasons why I am not satisfied, at all. i.e., you.
"Please establish a consensus" - just a blind repeat of the previous excuse, by a person who yet again, shows absolutely no willingness to engage with the core issue of there being no actual disagreement here, only stonewalling.
"This won't get you anywhere" - you, once again showing absolutely no willingness to engage with the clear and obvious difference between stonewalling and disagreement.
I will remind you again, there is a clear difference between disagreement and stonewalling. Your apparent confidence that you can stop me from making an edit that I have fully explained on the merits, while you yourself have made zero comment on the merits, is most assuredly misplaced. This is not how consensus works. This is not how Wikipedia is meant to work.
When you simply repeat an edit even though someone has objected -- that's where you're not going to get anywhere. It's not a matter of my participating or not -- it's a question of gaining consensus for the edit you seek. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of you refusing to acknowledge I have already established a consensus through discussion (one strong argument versus two weak ones - all other objections being merely procedural), and since you cannot be unaware of the fact that your latest intervention alters the natural course of editing, which allows for people to save face by not actually having to admit they were wrong to acquiesce to an edit, you have taken a side here, despite your apparent wish to be seen as an impartial observer. Is it your intention that I should have to embarass my two opponents to satisfy your procedural concerns? Or do you have some other interpretation of how to gain a consensus in this matter, other than through a week long discussion and direct editing?
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called
Hey there. I saw that you reverted my last edit to
WP:CRIT. It is irrevelant what are Carl Benjamin's considerations about this be included or not, my edit was done in order to enforce a Wikipedia's policy. Ajñavidya (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Except that you didn't draw on a policy, you drew on an essay. And, you didn't even establish that your edit was in conformity with the essay. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, it's not a guideline, it's an essay. But even being an essay, it must be taken into account. This essay has been used to avoid controversy sections on other BLPs, and I think that fairly so. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding/collapsing information on the BLP noticeboard
Since you hid/collapsed the information on the Biography of Living Person noticeboard again, I am very curious of your reason why. There is a valid and serious concern about the administrative conduct that is taking place on this biography to prevent Neutral Point of View. Any user that questions the biased smear content on this biography is automatically added to the sockpuppets list, without any evidence of wrongdoing, and the core problem is never addressed. This dispute is exactly what the BLP noticeboard was created for. 99.7.151.39 (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial topic area alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (
page-specific restrictions
, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the
guidance on these sanctions
. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Stop engaging in edit war. This is unethical to the wikipedia policy.
Regards to the "Bosso Adamtey I" Wikipedia page, I encourage you to be professional and stop engaging in edit war. We are all here to grow the community and make good, authentic information available for all. See WP:INACCURATE WP:IAI and WP:INAPPROPRIATE WP:ICW to learn more about inaccurate information.
@Jh15s: you've got the wrong end of the stick here -- IP address removes a long-standing element of the lead, and my reverting that edit is not vandalism but rather the reverse. I'm going to put it back, and if you want to remove it you can start a discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity: Thanks for that - apologies, I'm still getting the hang of patrolling for vandalism, so I really appreciate people pointing out mistakes I've made by accident. Feel free to left me know if I stuff something up again! :) Jh15s (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing RfC on Great Barrington Declaration
Can you explain what your concern is with my closing my own RfC? Doing so is appropriate according to
WP:RFCCLOSE: There are several ways in which RfCs end: 1. The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the rfc template.Paisarepa 17:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
If you are withdrawing your own RfC, then fine. But that doesn't mean implementing the edit -- it rather means abandoning the proposal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RFCCLOSE doesn't make a distinction between a community response which obviously supports vs. obviously opposes the matter at question. The RfC has been live for eight days, the response has overwhelmingly been 'no', and there has been no additional response or comment for three days. It would be hard to argue that the community response is not obvious. Paisarepa 17:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why you would prefer not to pay attention to the word "withdraw". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Charlie Kirk Masks Edit
You persistently revert edits that have removed the word 'falsely' from the description of Charlie Kirk's response to masks. Why?
Agreed - but our views about him should not come through in the article. It should be written from a neutral point of view using verifiable information. 'falsely' add unnecessary slant. Jp6942 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit warring on
Linda Reade
I've restored my edits on
Linda Reade and ask you again to please stop the war and don't just delete relevant information that belongs in an encyclopedia before you get consensus. Ben133 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Please refrain from falsely claiming consensus as you just did in your revert of my edit on
Linda Reade and do not accuse me (again, falsely) of being a SPA. Winchester2313 (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Hello, I have notified admins about the threats you made on my talk page.
You posted this on my talk-page after I made one edit in 18 hours: "You seem intent on repeated reversions of edits by other editors. You know what the consequences can be; it strikes me as likely that you will soon experience more of them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)". I feel that this is uncalled for, especially since I have never had any sort of interaction with you. MsSMarie (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie[reply]
Just very suspicious. We had a sock of Orchomen revert and then you immediately revert 1 minute after. Just enough time to log on to another account. This is behavior Orchomen is well known for.155.246.151.38 (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- denials of sockhood tend not to be believed (sometimes for good reason), so I think I'll decline the opportunity to engage with this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Standard ArbCom notice on Gender and sexuality
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called
It's not, and I intend to continue in this vein (because I think your own comments and editing are inappropriate) -- so once I again I invite you to raise it at ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not inaccurate when you respond to my argument, which is strictly based on cited sources, by accusing me of
WP:OR without yourself offering any support for your assertion? Are we in the Mirror Universe, then? I don't think I brought my moustache...Newimpartial (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
This must be the mirror universe, if editors can only interact with one another at ANI (with ritual daggers drawn for a duel, presumably). Newimpartial (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nomoskedasticity, I am requesting that you self-revert this edit. You made the same change earlier today and then you were reverted. Your restoration of your edit is a violation of the consensus required restriction on that page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I won't, because I genuinely think the version you want is a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the BLP exemption to reversion restrictions, and I don't think this qualifies. The policy says, "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Since there are so many good-faith editors that disagree with your interpretation, would you please follow that advice, self-revert, and start a BLPN discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly happy to participate at BLPN (and also to continue at the article talk-page). But I am not willing to write that Stock "opposes gender self-identification" when we don't appear to have sources saying that she opposes gender self-identification. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it will matter, but by the way: I do not share Stock's views on this topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What concerns me is the threat of
WP:RGW thinking is always wrongheaded, even when the GW in question is "other editors trying to RGW". Which comes back to the fundamental misunderstanding of the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Fascinating -- so, if I don't have exactly the understanding of this topic you have, that means I don't understand it? Interesting notion of competence... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me entirely. If you have an understanding of the topic that literally no-one else has - at least, no-one who has read the relevant sources - that is my point of concern. Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am literally just thinking about the plain meaning of words and terms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For yourself? In other words, ignoring the context provided by the available sources? Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re-set?
Some of your recent interventions, like this comment and this one, seem hostile to me and certainly do not reflect a well-grounded perception of my intentions or my editing record. I also recognize that my recent AE filing, and comments like this one, have been unhelpful. I don't think our interaction is productive for the project, the way it has been going.
So I was wondering if we might be able to re-set from zero, and try to interact strictly on the basis of actual edits made from here forward, rather than carrying forward "bad blood" or making assumptions about each other's intentions. What do you think? Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussion
Hi, I just received notice that a reply was posted to the Amiram Goldblum discussion you began, which I did not see until now. I would like to reply, but the discussion has been archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive442. Where is the appropriate place to reply? Ar2332 (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
Not sure why you reverted my two edits. Your reverts seem to violate NPOV. And telling me to knock it off does not help . Nerguy (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you know why. Among other things, "false" is supported by the source and is in no way "opinion" (as per your edit summary). If you want to explore this further, we will do at ANI, where any idea of editing these articles in truther mode will get the outcome it deserves. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me what specifically makes the source not reliable or proper. I think the info is relevant and it is from an article Rav Elyashiv wrote in the yated.Meir Hakoton (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A goat for you!
Last night I saw the old HAARETZ news article about "Aligning text to the right" from 2013 that mentioned you. [78] So cool! At the same time it is very disheartening to see what is happening in regard to that stuff. You are now a hero of mine. Cheers, I mean BAAHH!
What is wrong with mentioning ethnicity? Sungodtemple (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing much -- but if you put "Russian-Jew" you conflate ethnicity with nationality (or, perhaps, you imply that "Jew" is a nationality). I also get the sense you are not a native English speaker -- so, you might not have the ear that would enable you to hear how "Jew" used in that way sounds like a slur. Of course, there's nothing wrong with being Jewish -- but there are good and bad ways to refer to people, tone and connotation matter. By the way, the place for this discussion is the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you rollbacked a good chunk of the recent edits, without any edit summary. In addition, a good chunk of that, is proper and fit for the article. Just an FYI. Sir Joseph(talk) 18:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind adoption of the minor edits. But when someone deletes sourced information under the guise of "accuracy"... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your revert, but I would strongly advise against making such reverts in general, as
WP:BLPRESTORE requires consensus for doing so ("If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first"). There's no harm in letting the discussion run for a while before restoring the content, and then enforcing the obtained consensus. If it wasn't for your experience, I'd even place a generic {{uw-ew}} here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
Regarding the above mentioned talk pages, I think it reasonable to assume PV monitors its Wikipedia pages. Comments posted to the talk pages could later appear in a PV release. I think it is a good idea to resist any temptation to be flip, and answer all talk page comments straightforwardly. -- M.boli (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand the concern. But I'm also not inclined to let fear of PV turn into a chilling effect... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Righto. I can see that also. -- M.boli (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep displaying your superiority with the use of name-calling. That promises to get you far in the circles you associate with, I suppose. Great victory! 73.254.5.124 (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link to Muckrock is the veterans DD-214 which is the official service record issued by the Department of Defense for the veteran’s service history. Is there another document outside of the official service record that you would need to see in order to add awards and decorations? I’ve been asked by Mr Nance to add those directly; though by removing that section, and dismissing the link you are subsequently dismissing the veterans official service record. Tairui2021 (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that there's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia. One key issue here is
WP:COI, now that we know you're acting on behalf of Nance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Requested third opinion
Instead of getting into an WP:EW I thought a third opinion might be helpful to resolve our conversation.
Wikipedia:Third Opinion#Active_disagreements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netanya9 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
that is to "say," transcendent of the human condition,
the noun, "implication" or plural use "implications" very similar, not an exact correspondence to "alleged,"
the regards, please note something needed commonality of 'wiki' participants, in a put forth, not platitude "grateful," or in the person's own purpose of 'heart' of self's needs of thankfulness, the same definition of 'grateful,'
the honor code wiki code of ethics 'use' *or* the honor code wiki code of ethics 'misuse' of the wiki systems,
thereby, yes, impartially citing sources need to be seen as a 'given.'
However, the code of ethical conduct including influences on the wiki community in general, ie, in college on the 'electronic' contact systems, *like* or being "usenet," is *no* "flames" are permitted.
Thereby,
not to ostracize, someone that has by pseudonym, and there could be a set of pseudonyms to illustrate faux or literal, had been given information to keep to the code of conduct, *like story development, in prose for example,
yet, not a histro-drama, to protect the rights of each wiki participant,
thereby, I personally, do not know "GabeTucker" and do not plan on research of fact checking in my own personal life, thereby,
for my, Creator Granted rights, it is *as if* that name, *is* a pseudonym,
in regard to a source, brb, lol, just so funny, eh? Oh, that is up to you, ok? ... looking up a source, now of regards to illustrations of code of ethical rule based situation of community;- 18:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
"It’s important to stress that the honor code is about bettering the school, not about the rewards.
Some classrooms may also choose to give individual rewards for each student that makes it through the semester without acting against the honor code. This can be as simple as choosing a prize from a bin of small items like stickers, bouncy balls or candy. By giving rewards individually, schools can reduce the herd mentality of working towards a group reward. However, students should still understand that academics are the most important priority, not prizes."
"For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor." Joschtony (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? lol, so just an average wiki participant,
learning to navigate the learning curve as if this 'place' online had been a 'campus' of various needs of online publishing,
like wikiversity, in truth, its easier to post sources of bibliographical needs, and type, but, the honor code of ethics, does help foster true 'safe place' of posting legitimate forms of literary needs. Even wikibooks!
So, by Creator Granted gratitude in my "heart & soul" of spirituality intimately needing body, of strength of fiber of being, including 'mind,' - in personal need perspective need use terms from the Scriptural texts of The Holy Bible;- thereby,
thank you, each individual, yikes, never omniscient, Joschtony, God Given name and surname, Joseph Cimino known legally, too, by Joseph Paul Pelaez, - so by only The Creator, one Eternal God obviously from this point of view, blesses, thereby,
thank you each and everyone who keeps the honor code in proper proportion legally on he wike system.
Post Script,
"English[edit]
Etymology[edit]
From Ancient Greek νόμος (nómos). Doublet of nome.
Noun[edit]
nomos (plural nomoi)
The body of law, especially that governing human behaviour.
who is, "Nomoskedasticity" a proportional faux pseudonym for a character role that plays precise ( truth proportional to false), thus theoretically in practice, a 'sounding board' character, that is holistically, harmless in void benignity innocuous?
However, truth is true, and falsehood is false or exact balance of true and false, in Biblical the Scriptural texts, I'm never infallible, however, the Spirit of truth *from God being infallible, this submitted to be had been submitted, the 'void' at the start of The Holy Bible, has to be, benign harmless and the state of innocuous, that is harmlessness because, God Eternal Creator has to be being Eternally Benevolent.
How come, not only joys in natural sorrow, like in caring for one another, the spirituality of 'so long, for now' and honorably 'wish you were here,' and such like natural sorrows, - it is simplistic to know, unearned suffering started epochs ago in the history of humanity immemorial, right, yes, it is self evident. Not only is this 'self evident' it is ubiquitously felt in the every fiber of being of each person human being having a "God Given" name and surname.
So, "Nomoskedasticity" is a useful faux character for placing ethical code of influence by conduct of communication, right? Joschtony (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Skilling
I changed the lead sentence at Jeffrey Skilling back to where it was before the discussion started. If you disagree, feel free to change it back. I don't have a strong feeling one way or another but I also don't think there's consensus at the BLP board for "white collar criminal", which is really a way to soften the seriousness of the crimes he committed (in my view). Wes sideman (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you "view" is a far left liberal agenda (which is fact) 63.143.201.234 (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean "gain traction" - it was obvious consensus "convicted felon" is a vague contentious label and should not be used in any lead. It was very clear. 2605:59C8:204E:2510:E520:5D9C:C205:D827 (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering how to resolve the seemingly different treatments of Skilling's bio, R. Kelly, and that of Klete Keller. For months, the Keller article included "convicted felon" in his first sentence, but this blocked user Defeedme (that has been reduced to IP-hopping, as you can see on your own talk page) mounted a campaign to remove it. He's been largely impotent on the Skilling talk page, and I was wondering if you have any thoughts on the Keller article. Wes sideman (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
now you are "canvassing"
um no, please don't lie - convicted felon was added by a drive-by ip and you were "quick to restore it" - proof here:
Interesting. It appears the first time it was in the lead was thanks to a drive-by IP editor https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Klete_Keller&diff=next&oldid=1082223774. Another IP editor objected https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Klete_Keller&diff=prev&oldid=1113070891. You were quick to restore it (next edit). It appears this has been challenged off and on since it was added and you seem to be the champion of retaining the drive-by IP editor's change. However, looking at the various discussions I don't see any consensus for this version and it's clear even if we consider his Jan 6th actions the most significant thing about him, it is poor form to say being "a felon" is the significant thing about him. The alternative opening sentence that says he was notable for his swim career and his felony plea deal is just far more encyclopedic than what you are trying to defend. Springee (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
looks like you're the impotent one now on Skilling LOL 96.80.125.141 (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of WP:PASSIVE
WP:PASSIVE
.
Nomoskedasticity talk contribs 65,159 bytes −14 Reverted 1 edit by GabeTucker (talk): The academic source is much better...
Please review Wikipedia's policies before making further changes on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a platform intended to be civil and open to everyone. Here are some pointers from
WP:PASSIVE
that might be helpful:
Being passive aggressive to others on Wikipedia makes you look unfriendly, and new editors will be less likely to ask you for help.
What to do
Tell them you think they are wrong
Tell them why you think they are wrong
Tell them how they could fix the problem
Do so in a neutral, friendly way
If it's not important to you or you don't feel like it, you don't need to add anything
What not to do
Insult them openly
Insult them passive-aggressively yourself
Tell them they are right if they are wrong
Be overly kind (it might look like you support them even if you don't)
Huh. I suppose I could just tell you to fuck off -- not a violation of "passive"... Or maybe "okay cupcake"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be intelligent enough so that you could be more introspective. Consider stepping back from your current mode of thinking and consider viewing yourself from a different perspective. The goal would be for you to be more considerate of other opinions and more constructively critique them.f Pallittascope (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Eastell until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Why did you revert the edit? The edit added significant information, deleted a section clearly in violation of Wikipedia rules regarding full sections dedicated to specific statements, and instead moved those sections into the biography. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Among other things -- you added unsourced commentary, e.g. the bit about 'misunderstandings'. You also removed material. So, your edit summary was misleading. I explained in my edit summary. To discuss how to edit the article, start a talk-page discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there are minor issues with the edit, feel free to fix them. The "removed" material was just moved to a different section. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Introducing unsourced commentary is not a 'minor issue'. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Oxford Round Table, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
.jpg)
Done. Just waiting for the GFDL to be added to their server and all will be in compliance. As it is, they've licensed the article under the GFDL and cited us. vecia 03:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)]
-- Avi (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Done, speedy deleted as G8. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Precision123 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Oxford Round Table, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Aragorn8392 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- MrX 15:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
' Olowe2011 Talk 22:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk to me 01:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)]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.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dorothy Moon § Request for comment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
