User talk:Avruch/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sorry

Hi, Avruch. I think I may have implied you kowtow to power, in my last post on FT2's page. I'm sorry I did. It's not what I believe, but I posted in anger. I've come to the realization that most people simply don't have an eye for FT2's bullying. That's odd to me, but there you go. I could send you a list of his bullying manoeuvres—if you're interested—but I'd frankly rather not waste time on typing it up if you're not, so here's one of many test cases: I acknowledge very clearly that I misread the log timestamps: "About the timestamps, I did indeed make a stupid mistake, sorry: these are minutes, not seconds."[1] And in his next post FT2 demands I acknowledge it again: "Do you now agree the log shows that as being the timescale involved?".[2] If that's not bullying in your book, then, well, I certainly won't waste both our times by continuing to wave and point. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

re: CAMERA lobby page

Avruch, I just put this link up at the CAMERA lobby page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wikiforpalestine/?v=1&t=search&ch=web&pub=groups&sec=group&slk=1 It could be that these people are actually the ones applying sanctions to us. To me it puts the whole question of being sanctioned for outside group membership in a new focus. I would appreciate your thoughts. Juanita (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting, I saw the link when you posted it at the requests page. It points up the weakness of hunting for outside influences as a mechanism for reducing POV-warring in contentious areas. There are probably a whole collection of active, semi-active and inactive influence groups aimed at Wikipedia. Who knows who joins them? You could see a name on the yahoo group that matches an admin or arbitrator on Wikipedia, but what proves it is actually that individual? Avruch T 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, please either restore my comment to the Requests for arbitration page or remove the other instances of threaded discussion there (mainly in Dajudem's contributions). thank you, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the other examples of threaded discussion are from you also. But since Dajudem decided to respond, I chose not to remove it. Please confine your comments to an area set aside for your statement. Avruch T 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Repayment

I just caught your link to the Almontaser article. But for it, I should never have read it, though a regular reader of the NYT. Could I repay you with a link to this, on the unlikely possibility you may have missed it? A rather brilliant piece on Martin Amis's latest by Leon Wieseltier (with whom I often disagree, but, refreshingly, not here. I.e. The Catastrophist Thanks and Best Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Neat, I hadn't seen that one. Thanks! Avruch T 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Haha - very well written indeed, I want to read the book now if only to compare it to the review. A bit embarrassed to say I'd never heard of either writer, however. I make no claim to a great education! Avruch T 21:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't believe you. Amis is close to being, I suppose will soon be, one of the finest prose stylists after Updike, a mixture of Nabokov and Saul Bellow, his two heroes. I wish he hadn't got into this area (I think his old man, Sir Kingsley Amis's, notorious grumps with the world are coming to haunt him, only he's chosen a different theme). Cripes, I'd better pack it in, it's late here. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reformatting refs

Why are you taking away the whitespace for the refs? I specifically have it there when I add references to make it easier to see what is visible text and what is a ref when editing. -- Avi (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On the article about the rabbi, you mean? I wasn't doing it to take away the whitespace... I was trying to set those up as separate refs, and encountered a formatting screwup, so I made them look like how I normally see them to make it easier to figure out what the problem was. Turns out it was just a missing ref tag. Sorry for changing the format, I'd switch it back but I think I'd break it again. Avruch T 21:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I switched it back, no brokenness. Avruch T 12:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Todah! -- Avi (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

explain your reverts

Hi, please don't make unexplained reverts of valid edits like this. It's confusing and can be quite frustrating for the people who are trying to improve the article. Krawndawg (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange. I had attempted to cancel the TW edit and make it an undo with an explanatory edit summary, and when I had looked in the history at the time it had appeared as though I was successful... The point of reverting the removal of content was that Kulikovsky removed significant referenced content for a rationale I disagree with, apparently without prior discussion on the talk page. I've restored both paragraphs and they should remain until there is consensus to remove them. Avruch T 12:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi. I sent you an e-mail recently; could you have a look? Everyking (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied. Sorry for the delay. Avruch T 19:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re

I've replied on my talk page. Monobi (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome and Daniel Pipes

Thanks for the welcome message. Yes, I am editing on and off since I don't have too much time to spend here. As for your question: yes, I think "detect" is more neutral. "Claim", so I have read across Wikipedia, is a weasel word, implying that the viewpoint - it clearly is an opinion and not fact - is illegitimate or wrong. Deposuit (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Avruch.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I very much appreciate your excellent questions, your on-going discussions with respondents to the RfB, and your post-closure comments on the 'crat chat talk page. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your both your early and strong support, and the detailed and comprehensive attention which you paid to the discussions. Lastly, this makes TWICE we were mistaken for each other, will there be a third? ;) -- Avi (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

re David Shankbone block

Thanks for your message on my talkpage. It is a difficult aspect regarding the utterance of a word that is generally considered the most taboo in current western culture, when the intended recipient is not as offended as the casual readership might be (and even more so when it is "hidden" within a wikilink). I hope I had clarified that the block was for a major violation of the standards of communication that is expected between editors (ip and account holders); it is simply not acceptable that anyone should click that link and find themselves on that page when following a discussion - even if they are not offended by the subject matter, there is the consideration of how they may view the implicit reference. That said, if you were to reduce the tariff citing your own concerns regarding severity I would have no objection. My own concerns (which may be shared by a lesser or greater number of Wikipedians) are amply demonstrated by the block I imposed. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod from 526 in poetry

Hello, I have removed the prod you recently added to 526 in poetry. Your argument for deleting the article was sound, however there are literally dozens of articles just like this (see List of years in poetry). Those articles were created by Wikiproject Poetry and it would probably be a good idea to bring it up with them; it looks to me to be an idea they came up with in 2007 but largely abandoned. Alternatively, you could do a mass deletion of the articles with an AfD that covers them all (or at least the abandoned ones), if you do I would support this because I see little point in having all of those articles in the first place since Wikipedia isn't a directory and we have categories already for that kind of thing. A proposed deletion on just one of dozens of articles isn't going to be a lot of help though. I just wanted to let you know, thanks! -- Atamachat 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:31, 20 May 2008 (edit)

Hi Avruch, Revision as of 23:31, 20 May 2008 (edit) Avruch (Talk | contribs) (perhaps post this to the talkpage and reformat/reference to make it appropriate for a living person biography, see WP:BLP and WP:V for more information.) I'm new to this and so I'm not sure what was missing. I'd be happy to but I'm new thanks. I gather the format was wrong ? Thanks Darlie


  • Darlie, you might want to review the policies attached to verifiability and biographies of living people. Additions to articles, particularly of living people, must be rigorously sourced and neutral in point of view. It might be a good idea to start with articles that are not contentious biographies of living people and work your way up, so that your edits to articles like J. Michael Bailey have a greater chance of remaining. Avruch T 02:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Ok I will do that . I have attempted to provided sources now but if they are not enough I'd like a bit of help . I'll try not take up too much space here but I'm confused when one sided accusations like this are allowed. "The controversy surrounding Bailey's book has been cited as an alarming example of infringement of academic and intellectual freedom and freedom of speech. Charges that Bailey acted "unethically, immorally, and illegally" were investigated by Northwestern University ethicist Alice Dreger, who alleges the accusations were unfounded.[20]"What happened to Bailey is important, because the harassment was so extraordinarily bad and because it could happen to any researcher in the field,” said Dreger. "If we’re going to have research at all, then we’re going to have people saying unpopular things, and if this is what happens to them, then we’ve got problems not only for science but free expression itself... The bottom line is that they tried to ruin this guy, and they almost succeeded."[19] Bailey called the two years following its publication as "the hardest of my life."[19]" Ok now but you have a working college of Dr Bailey claiming to clear him without any source at all beyond their own opinion. North Westerns investigations proceedings were closed, confidential and sealed. And who "cited " it as an alarming example of infringement of academic and intellectual freedom and freedom of speech ? That is ok ? Unbias ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) 09:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok , I have reviewed the( do no harm ) policy and leave it up to you to decide what to edit but accusations against Baileys critics seem to have been allowed throughout giving it a very pro Dr Bailey slant rather than any neutrality . Alice Dreger's arguments seem to be given the most weight from the beginning to the end and since the article cites only Dr Baileys assertions that he has been cleared by the NorthWestern investigation perhaps it should be removed . NW never issued any statement to that effect and proceedings are confidential it is unverifiable. I was trying to add balance to what I saw as a very one sided article . Oh, and one last thing, this is NOT Baileys BIO, this is an article on his book, the Man Who Would Be Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) 16:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded to you about this yet - yes, you're right, its not the actual J Michael Bailey article. On the other hand, anything have to do with the investigation and allegations of misconduct are still covered by the BLP policy - which requires neutrally worded coverage and meticulous sourcing to reliable sources (see the requirements for references, saying that "Persons A and B have said..." isn't sufficient unless its followed by a reference to where exactly they said it). I'll give you a more detailed response about the wider issue later on today. Avruch T 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have gone in and removed REPEATED blatant one source defense of Bailey by Dreger (only oner copy remains ) , unsourced fabrication about his "exoneration". NO statement could be found at all of Northwestern, do you have one somewhere ? Otherwise it is only Baileys word. I removed a virtual review of his book that added assumptions as conclusions and was POVF . I'm all for neutrality , my problem is that that there was no balance at all , slandering and accusing his critics without citing any response. Unless you dispute my sources point for point we have a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We do have a problem. Its good that you want to improve the neutrality of the article, a goal we can get behind. But neutrality is not achieved by representing only a condemnatory view of Bailey and his work and putting all defense of him in scare quotes and attributed only to him. Removing sources to a New York Times article with an admonishment to "READ" it, and because you believe the reporter didn't do research, is unacceptable and does not lead to improvement of the article. The problem is that neutral, well written and well referenced (to specific citations of reliable sources, not "So and so says") content is the only acceptable outcome and has not been what you have introduced with your edits. Avruch T 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Again , this is not his BIO, it is an article on his work , Perhaps then it would be better to strip it right down and lose all reference to the controversy and the unproven statements/accusations that there was any conspiracy. The article that I first read was full of unsourced , completely pro Dr Bailey bias . The article by the NY Times cited no investigation and found nothing itself , it sited Alice Dregers opinion , an opinion that was hidden throughout the entire article but not credited to her . Sorry if the "READ " seemed aggressive , it was limited space . Bailey and Dreger make constant accusations throughout , does "do no harm " apply only to them ? Again , it's about the book so I personally don't care about the huge personal Bailey defense added , delete it all but delete both sides if you can't be neutral. This article was completely one sided and without balance , I added the opinions of the CRITICS POINTED OUT BY THE ARTICLE of the books in sourced articles. Is what Bailey and Dreger doing but "he' said , now it's "she" said (ironic the article is on transsexualism ).None of their statements have anything to do with the book, they are all personal statements that should be in his BIO. Perhaps this needs a complete edit . I don't think it is pro or con Bailey now. I think it is a balanced version with both sides opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Little bit of advice / for the record....

Hi Av - I posted the following to User:Ryulong today - being the first admin username I saw - Ryu is wary to involve himself in BLP stuff (don't blame him at all - and you can see our brief chat on his talkpage) - so I thought I'd swing by here and see what you think. I don't think anything needs to be done really, but am annoyed at myself for having contravened a restriction, and hope to be able to avoid nasty allegations or anything further down the track. Take any action you think necessary! copied message follows....... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been pressing 'random article' and making some changes today (it's kinda fun!) - and in taking a look at my watchlist I realise I've made this edit which is actually to a 'biography of a living person' - something I'm currently prohibited from editing under an arbcom restriction. I don't think the para. should be there (obviously!) - and find myself in a bit of a dilemma about what exactly to do. I should add that this was a mistake - I shouldn't have edited that article, and I do not generally plan on editing BLPs until such time as my restriction is lifted.

I'm heading out for a few hours now, but any advice you can offer / action you think's best to take would be appreciated. Cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a random article fan myself, I usually make most of my edits that way - and generally to BLPs lately. I've restored that paragraph, minus the POV spin, and added some tags so that it is categorized appropriately. I'd say a one-off absent-minded edit to a BLP removing questionable content isn't a big deal. We'll see if Ryulong agrees, but if it were up to me I'd say it could be ignored in view of your normal compliance with all the remedies. Avruch T 13:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave me alone

I'll thank you to leave no more messages on my talk regarding RfAs I oppose on an alternate account. Thanks, Bellwether BC 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You should be aware that if you are going to use a bad hand account to oppose RfAs or take other actions it can be considered an abuse of sockpuppets, for which both accounts can potentially be blocked. RtV means gone - if you want to take actions that can be interpreted negatively, use your primary account. Avruch T 17:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz

Of interest, perhaps? Hitler's Willing Executioners is specifically mentioned as a parallel, so I thought you might have valuable input. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Larry Bliss

Hey there. I saw that you added a {{refimprove}} tag to the article on Larry Bliss. I'm a little confused because, as far as I can tell, every substantive fact in the article is referenced. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how the references need improving. Thanks. — Lincolnite (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I added the tag because of concerns about the type of references, including websites that I wouldn't necessarily consider third party (his own website, for example). I haven't seen links to official election results to reference an individuals status as a legislator, but I don't think that is a serious problem. I would like to see, though, the addition of some sources for the other information in the article that comes from a journal, newspaper, etc. Avruch T 16:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think I've fixed it and have removed the tag. Let me know if there's a problem. Cheers. — Lincolnite (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

I've sent one to you. Acalamari 18:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Avruch. I thought that it would be worth letting you know. Thanks for your input. Acalamari 19:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...I was not aware that a year had to pass for anyone to request an appeal for Everyking. Prior to today, when did they ever say this? Acalamari 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Man Who Would Be Queen

Thanks for your work on this article. Though Alice Dreger has been trying since 2006 to imply as much, she had nothing to do with the official Northwestern investigation of Bailey, which concluded before she even worked there. The real investigation refused to release their findings or say what actions were taken against Bailey. See Wilson R (2004, Dec. 10). Northwestern U. will not reveal results of investigation into sex researcher. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 10. All Dreger did was write a paper defending Bailey. It's easy to misinterpret the facts, because that's exactly the point of her efforts. Jokestress (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Times article does imply that Dreger's investigation was based upon her own interest in the allegations against Bailey, now that I think about how the explanation was set up. There is no evidence of any sanction or reprimand against Bailey, is there? Reduction in his privileges, status, that sort of thing? If I recall he gave up the chair of his department, but did that strike you as being related? Avruch T 23:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The Times article is the chief source of misinformation (after Dreger). Carey had it in for those who got him written up by FAIR and national LGBT orgs for his pro-Bailey piece "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited," also written to coincide with the start of the IASR conference (as was the 2007 piece). Most interpreted Carey to mean Dreger's was THE investigation. Carey is the only one who covered Dreger's "investigation" in the national news.
The university has stated that Bailey's resignation as Chair was not related to the book. Verifiability, not truth, as we say. ;) Jokestress (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing adjudication board

Hello Avruch. I was about to send someone to participate in discussion about this board, but then I noticed the link in {{Cent}} goes to the Arbcom decision itself. Have you identified a thread where this can be discussed? If not, what would you think of opening a new thread at WP:VPP and making the Cent link point there? EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. The main discussion was happening at the proposed decision talkpage, and there are still some participants - but not, lately, any members of the Committee. Although I haven't been following it, there was a thread started at VPP about the Board. I think folks should continue to weigh in, if interested, on the proposed decision talkpage. The opportunity to alter or oppose the proposal is really limited to Arbitrators, so at this point in the process the only audience for discussion is the Committee. It might be useful to start a new thread at VPP or elsewhere notifying folks of the proposal and the discussion on the talkpage, though. Avruch T 15:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

DHMO RfA pic

I did not delete it by accident. I agree with Krimpet's comment but I find a pic over the top and removed it. It is best kept removed, unless the author persists upon the self-reflection. If you don't mind, please delete it back. If not, I am not to re-delete it. --Irpen 03:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually didn't even really look at the picture. If I had I probably would've restored the written comment without the image. It looks like Krimpet has switched images, though. Avruch T 03:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)