User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive2

1409:

consider more reliable have cited him for. I'd love to include the Cahokia stuff—there was a good article on this on the St Charles, MS historical society website but it disappeared a while ago—but I've been waiting for a reliable source to publish it and it hasn't happened yet so I've given up waiting. Likewise, they had a good deal of info on his life in St Charles that would be great if it turned up in a better source. The essay "Where was the Du Sable farm of 1790" is interesting: I think too much speculation for inclusion in WP, but it brings home just how little is known for certain about Point du Sable's time in Chicago.—

1779:

perspectives also in taking Epeefleche's side. Yes, there was a roughly two-thirds split against my position (keeping in mind that there was some circumstantial evidence of offwiki canvassing, including that Epeefleche has a background of doing exactly that), but that's not a unanimous enough reason to categorically ignore one side, and then to criticise me. This is an outright endorsement of the strategies and approaches used by Epeefleche's side, i.e., that wikidramamongering is an effective defence against any criticism and to silence opponents.

3928: 3705:

1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 624 words and 0 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits;

510: 2247: 3039: 2767:- Eureka!!! And that's exactly the point. There are widely accepted definitions for things like time and parentage. They are objective. There is no scope, or very very little for personal viewpoints to influence those things........ Now, going back to the main question, once again! Do you accept that there are no accepted definition (exogenous to you or I) for things like Catholicness and Jewishness? Ergo those things are subjective? 1132: 1081: 4910: 4234: 2123: 1474: 112: 3746: 4074: 1925: 4333: 3581: 5042: 3270: 270: 613:. Now, I see you have never been blocked, and I am sure you would like to keep it that way. I suggest therefore that you will wish to keep any further comments on that discussion to the points we are debating. Any concerns you have with my conduct may best be raised with me at my talk in the first instance or else here, since we've started now talking about 3529: 5155:. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. 2932:. I have tried to make clear what the proper things to consider are (rs definitions and sources). But as no one can feel another's feelings, nor rely on thier ideology, then I am comfortable with saying that that is not the way to proceed. I also think, we have reached the useful limit of the present discussion, but I thank you for it. -- 2954:, let's use the term "lack of broad consensus". The point I've made from the beginning is that you should require a higher than normal level of consensus over race/thnic/national identity/sexual orientation categorization. WP has many policies which highlight the need a "higher levels of consensus" on certain topics. 3889:

unless the WMF or Wales take some kind of action themselves, perhaps through a COI policy for all projects, nothing is likely to be done if one is to rely on the "community." In fact, I suspect that if anything is done at all, it will be to remove the weak COI guidelines that already exist. Thanks for listening.

2670:- Disagree. It is treated like beauty. Some sources will call the Mona Lisa "beautiful", others won't state it outright recognizing that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Similarly, some sources may call Roy "Jewish", others will recognize that religious affiliation is in the eye of the beholder. Same thing. 2838:

Hmmmm... Well, you seem to keep stating that they are easily defined and obvious, yet you seem very evasive when it comes pointing to obvious and widely accepted definitions. Listen, when I say "John lived during the 17th century" or "John is Jim's son" (objective statements), if those statements are

2536:

re Catherine de'Medici - Well, I don't know much about Catherine, so a little hard for me to comment there, but I will say that your assertion that "any biographer" would call her Catholic seems a little hyperbolic. If she held "non-Catholic" or unorthodox catholic beliefs, are you really saying that

1782:

I no longer care. This is the final nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned regarding the culture at wikipedia. I have retired, primarily due to the admin conduct around the wikidrama of this RFC/U, and do not intend to return. There are other communities around the web that I have found which are

1778:

You may or may not be aware that the RFC/U on Epeefleche's approach to removing easily and obviously verifiable content has closed. Epeefleche essentially ignored you and I, and refused to respond to the main point of my criticism. The closing admin, also, has gone on to completely ignore your and my

1444:

I was also confused by the certainty they use for the date of his arrival in Chicago. I was under the impression that the records of the Pinery show that he was there until 1784. Anyway, we'll see how the article does at FAC. I'm not sure that it will get through, but hopefully there will at least be

657:

I am curious (not arguing, mind you) about your contention that international treaties apply to Lake Michigan. Could you give me an example? I realize international navigation treaties apply, as they do to all bodies of water that are reachable from the ocean (eg Mississippi River, also entirely in

3704:

Hello, Alanscottwalker. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manning naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at

3639:. All of your insights were valuable to the discussion, especially your reference to the NPOV policy. Because of your novel approach, you prompted the rest of the discussion participants to assess the problem and its underlying policies from a different perspective. Thank you for your contributions! 3432:

Yes, the article gives too much weight to one thing over others for things of like relevance, now. In the words of the policy and in my edit summary it is unbalanced. So, we tell our readers we know that (and that they should know that, too) by that tag, and we are working on it -- they can help if

2946:

Frankly, I'm a little disappointed that you can't accept that things like race/ethnicity/national identity/sexual orientation are inherently more subjective/open to interpretation than things like parentage or time frame in which you've lived. Based on some of your comments (e.g. "broad definitional

2604:

Multiple definitions do not make something subjective. It means you fit multiple things into the definition. And it's not a matter of personal opinion, it's a matter of faithfully reflecting the sources. That's what we do, sometimes its hard, but that's what we do. So, your question is irrelevant

3458:

That information did come from Harpweek, at those links, but I'll admit I'm not sure if it still would have been a problem even were it given a proper reference as was my intention; I'm horrible when it comes to writing up the proper references, always forgetting a bit here or there, and so tend to

2983:

Oh, I am sure you will see editors argue over the things like when someone is born in this year and then died in this year in the next century, etc. But the important issue is to establish the gound rules (based in evidence and sources) and let it happen. We know ahead of time they will never come

2640:

There is agreeable metrics that work throughout the project, following relevant sources. We do not treat religion or ethnicity like you or I want, we treat it like biographical sources, and in biographical sources it is not treated like "beauty," it is treated like sociological or psychological or

1408:

Hi Alan. Thanks for the note. I'm not sure what they updated as the entry looks much as it was the last time I read it. Since we debated this source I have tried to use alternate sources where ever possible in the article, only citing Swenson for things that other sources that Knowledge (XXG) would

604:

means? Click the link and you will see that it means "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it" and is regarded by logical thinkers as a logical fallacy. Here on Knowledge (XXG), we do not resort to insulting

3888:

These aren't wackos but respected, long-time contributors. I just can't make any sense of this. The reasoning seems to be that one must focus entirely on content, but it seems totally at variance with best practices at every other publication, print or web, in the western world. My feeling is that

2215:

Hi there. This seems minor, but we spent a lot of time trying to balance out the Brad Vice story after it was vandalized by Robert Clark Young, and I wonder whether it's fair to once again insert the controversy into the lede. I've brought this up on the talk page of the entry; you might want to

2727:

Well, time period isn't subjective. I mean time can be measured with a clock, right? Time is an objective thing. Easy yardstick there. One's family isn't really subjective either, is it? Hard to argue with "John is Jim's dad". Either he is or he isn't. That's an objective thing. Don't really know

2407:

Think of something else which is subjective (e.g. The Mona Lisa's beauty). If everyone (or an overwhelming majority of people) agrees the Mona Lisa is beautiful, it's OK to state unequivocally state "The Mona Lisa is beautiful". But as soon as you have a heckler who shouts "Hey, I don't think the

982:

Just a pedantic point but with Irish titles it is best to get it right. You wrote in your summing up: "Arbcom, in the past, has counseled that these matters should be governed by reference to the current MOS, which also appears to be consistent with current title policy". Article titles should be

3709:

may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are

2998:

I have scanned through 100's of debates on WP. I have never seen a heated dispute about the time frame in which a subject lived, or their parentage (i.e. the two examples of objective things). I've seen dozens relating to race/ethnicity/national identity/religious affiliation/sexual orientation.

2887:

Whether or not something is easy, there is no dispute that many of these things are easy or difficult depending on the biographical persona being discussed and the proper use of sources -- made even more difficult when people don't know about the biographical subject at hand nor the sources, and

2902:

Qualify "many of these things". I mean, whether or not someone was born in the 17th century is never difficult right? It's hard to find much argument there. Someone's race/ethnicity/sexual persuasion/national identity is often difficult. You can't see that there is a fundamental difference (an

1267:

Many thanks for your comments, especially for making the point that "ramming consensus down throats (is not a good thing)", and "Guidelines have built-in flexibility, more so than policy". Newyorkbrad's 2011 comments are also sensible. As others point out, it's not a "one size fits all" thing.

2623:

re "faithfully reflecting the sources" - Listen. Clearly we want to faithfully reflect sources. But the point is that that only applies to OBJECTIVE things. So, again, I'll pose the same question to you; if I find 10 RSs that say "The Mona Lisa is beautiful", does that mean I can state in an

2868:

You're using terms like "broad definitional categories" which seems like a way to avoid the term "subjective". Maybe if we change the terminology here we can find more common ground. Would you agree that "Catholic" is a broader "definitional category" than something like "born in the 17th

3410:

Hey there. The other day, you added a box stating that part of the article has Undue Weight. Did you mean it gave undue weight to one exhibit to the detriment of the others, or some other reason? I usually add exhibit descriptions one at a time so I don't mean to give weight to the Small

4083:. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved. 2872:

Seems to me that people could easily get emotional or ideological about parentage. I mean, sure a person's parents have a huge emotional impact on people. Don't you think it could be possible that the reason folks don't argue about parentage is b/c it's easy to define what a parent is?

4429:

The ANI was closed due to the DRN but the DRN was closed because of the ANI. So where to go? What I included in the ANI is a conduct issue not content and I was not finished presenting the evidence in any case but can continue doing so at whichever forum is most appropriate. Regards,

2577:

Regardless this entire discussion is irrelevant. The real point, and the point I've been trying to make for a while is that SOME PEOPLE (like you) might look at Roy and reasonably say, "Looks Jewish to me", and OTHER PEOPLE (like me) might look at Roy and reasonably say "Doesn't look

2619:

re "if people agree on the metrics" - But people never agree on the metrics. Going back to what I said before; there is no widely agreed on yardstick/metric by which to measure catholicness or Jewishness or African Americanness or what have you. If you disagree, can you point to

3278:

Is the article perfect? No. Can it be improved with text brought from better sources? Of course. However, the notional "POV" aspect of the article name and of the article contents are contradicted by the great number of reliable sources discussing Detroit's phenomenal decline.

755:

A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at

2463:

We don't conclude that in biography that bothers to tell us about his parentage that it is somehow irrelevant to his biography, to do so is OR. We reflect what the sources source, like religion and ethnicity and country and date and place of birth, and place of death, etc.

1192:

The thinking part came from your comment. The violence part, also. It just does not make sense to discuss it as violence. None of my comment assumed anything about anyone's intent. Why would anyone assume Ironholds had no empathy? One would assume quite the opposite.

209:

Nice job on the Louis Purnell article and DYK. I was just checking the stats and saw that the DYK brought nearly 4000 hits to the article, which I thought was excellent. There should probably be an article on every one of the Tuskegee Airmen. They were truly national

1956:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on 2551:

Parentage is one of the ways Jewish is defined. As for Catherine, and what she illustrates, "opening windows" on souls is not the purpose of the categorization, it is the attribute that she has been given by the sources to illuminate her life, and others like her.

2745:

Einstein showed that time as subjective. And even father's cannot really know who is their son, unless we look to genes. But these things have accepted definitions (exogenous to you or I) and as long as they fit into the definitions they are what they are. --

1942: 1933: 1885: 1872: 3621: 2961:- The point is, that with subjective matters, you are ALWAYS to some degree using feelings and ideology. By saying you think we can make race/ethnic/national identity etc attributions, you are in fact doing the very thing you say you're trying to avoid. 2728:

what you mean by the word "genes". Culture and nationality can be sorta subjective. Hard to define how to measure cultural or national identity. You'll note that I included "national identity" as one of the attributes that we ought to be careful with.

658:

the US). However there exist several fishing regulations that apply to Lake Michigan only, due to its unique position among the Great Lakes. I am simply curious and was wondering if you could point me to a place to look. Thanks, and happy editing!

225:

Thanks. We were lucky with Louis. Sadly, it does not appear all that many made it to a place where getting down their individual history in a reliable format mattered . . . yet. And even with Louis, it would be great if there were more to fill in.

2839:

reasonably sourced, they are almost never the source of much debate. Conversely, I can point to a slew of examples where I say "John is African American" or "John is Catholic", source it, and yet it still generates debate. Why do you think that is?

2216:

weigh in. (I think the controversy should obviously be IN the article - it just shouldn't be one of the first things you encounter, or we're doing Young's work for him -- he's already essentially ruined this guy's life, from everything I've read.)

388: 3819:

Is your "Procedurally, this Move Request was discussed ..." comment intended to be a support vote? As it is currently formatted and placed, it is not numbered as a vote and breaks the numbering of any subsequent votes underneath it. Regards, --

1107:

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.

2328:- In most cases, this seems as though it would be self-evident. The fact Martin Luther King was African American is clearly relevant to his notability. If he wasn't African American, he probably would be notable for what he was notable for. 4090: 4065: 4823:

Yes. Although, it would have been clearer to make my question more future/past conditional. I assumed no relevant admin action would take place before the close (as a result of the close) -- at which time the close would be in the past.

2352:

I wonder about your personal standards, as they don't seem to be based in the discipline of biography. Someone who is raised in a Jewish home by Jewish people would have some influence on their life and is mentioned in their biography.

1654:

I thought it was easier to read and also that the context was important. But if you want to revert, I thought you could just hit the "undo" button, but maybe I'm wrong. In any case, if you like, I can revert it. Would you like me to do

969: 2165: 3978:, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of 2403:

etc etc. By what yardstick do I measure how black someone is? How catholic? How gay? What authority gets the final say on these matters? Answer - There is no yardstick. No final authority. The qualities are ultimately partially

636:

That is an observation on your conduct, not on any issue. The issues are addressed elsewhere. And, you have again construed policy incorrectly, which may be pattern related to your increasingly poor conduct, like that above.

2482:- I don't understand. That's not the point I was making. Mentioning that HIS PARENTS were non-practicing jews is fine. But that's not what we're discussing. We are discussing whether it is appropriate to label him as Jewish. 1891:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

1173:, trying to make sure readers got it that I wasn't carelessly implying it was just like physical violence. I guess that didn't work with everybody. Also, Alanscottwalker, you should assume good faith about the blocker's 605:

those we disagree with in order to try to win an argument. This is because, not only is it quite likely to make others see through the paucity of the tactic, but also because it is specifically prohibited by our policies

35:. This whole thing is very personal I think and in the day now that I had exposure to the subject matter I have come to realize that there will not be a solution at AE due to the drawn battlelines I have stumbled upon. 5151: 5046: 3678: 3670: 3073:

and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination

1111:

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.

1733:

I have written a proposed remedy to the Richard Arthur Norton affair, to be taken to AN/I in the event that ArbCom defers the case. Since the original thread is hatted, the proposal has been made on his talk page

3664:

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at

2581:

Answer for me one simple "yes or no" question; do you think that two reasonable people can look at the same subject and reasonably come to different conclusions as to that subjects appropriate "religious/ethnic"

1327:

As you can see from the cautions on his talk page: since returning to Knowledge (XXG), Konjakupoet has continued the same pattern of repeated vicious attacks on other users that he showed under his previous user

2698:

Not pointing to that yardstick, huh? Ok. Well anyway, your reply seems a little off point. You're not answering whether you think his Jewishness is subjective. You just seem to be reasserting that he is Jewish.

4550: 1914: 1104: 2388:- Am I contesting that? My cousin's mom was a lapsed/non-observant Catholic. Catholicism had "some influence" on my cousin's upbringing. It would not be right to call my cousin Catholic. How is Roy different? 2055:

We should obtain permission from The Art Institute of Chicago to have free use of Nighthawks - the image hunters want to delete it from all but two articles. Someone should call them from the Chicago group...

3459:

leave hidden notes so that another can pick it up if need be. If need be that text can be ultimately be left out, but a lot of the information that was there SHOULD end up in the article in some capacity. --

2927:

Well, since my position is it depends on the article and issue at hand, I won't be pretending that one size fits all. But I will not support policy that is based on individual feelings and ideology, and

2449:- You can't really source something that's subjective though. If I found an RS that said "The Mona Lisa is beautiful.", does that mean I could assert on wikipedia "The Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting"? 478:

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Knowledge (XXG) editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out

275: 1952:

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

3276:

is disruptive. Yes, multiple editors are discussing the problem, but there is nothing actionable, no working solution, just a great deal of "I don't like it." This tagging is no longer appropriate.

2585:

Not sure I understand what "opening windows" means, but again, you didn't really answer the question. Sure some sources may have applied the categorization. But that doesn't mean all sources would.

4203: 4193: 3666: 531: 1615:

I mentioned it here because the posting rate of messages there is high enough that you might not have been aware of this. As I mentioned in my edit summary, revert if you don't like. Regards, --

4045: 4032: 3914: 2854:

Probably because people get emotional or ideological about certain things, so they ignore or pick and choose among broad definitional categories and don't follow sources in the usual manner.

2947:

categories", "these things have accepted definitions") and your refusal to point to an ethnic/religous yardstick I largely suspect you get this point but are just too stubborn to give ground.

2310:, 1) Being born to "nonobservant Jewish family" does not in my mind make someone obviously and indisputably Jewish, 2) His being Jewish doesn't seem clearly relevant to his being part of the 3983: 2335:- I'm using "contraversial" to mean "lacks consensus". If you have one group of editors saying John is catholic, while another group says he's not, then his "catholicness" is controversial. 1520: 4546: 4539: 3334: 3326: 4197: 2274:

Your comment at ani was COMPLETELY....funny lol. I hope he gets unblocked and I am sure you don't agree (didn't read your rationale so I'm assuming) but still I had a chuckle at that.

1337: 4955: 1348:

I have lots of other facts organized into a case, and would be glad to get your off-wiki input on how to proceed (but my sending of email from WP seems to be disabled at this end).

721:

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Knowledge (XXG) email!

2731:

So, go on. I've pointed to yardsticks for measuring objective things for you. You're unwilling to say that Catholicness/Jewishness is subjective. So point to the yardstick for me.

854: 2605:

but in general NO, if people agree on the metrics, they should come by reason to the same conclusion, and that is the assumption on which the project's consensus model is based.

475:

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

3075: 3043: 5149:

article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so,

2906:

Additionally, I hope you recognize that "the sources" you keep referring can often disagree on subjective categorizations. For instance, there was some degree of debate around

3089: 1177:, as did I. The intent of the blocks is not the point, but the effect of them. My interest is in how the blockee is affected, which is why I requested empathy from Ironholds. 3321:

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at

2781:

No. Those were obviously included in my "these things." All have widely accepted definitions (exogenous to you or I) and long before us, including religion and ethnicity.

1630:

Meh. I would have preferred you not as those other links directly illustrate what I was trying to say but I don't want to spend the time to redo that. Thanks for the ntc.

3217:

applies everywhere on the Pedia, including talk pages, as your comment there notes that edit is nonblp compliant, so just a link should be made if you need to refer to it.

2442:- Oh sure. But that's not the case with Roy, right? With Roy, the only thing that was stated was that HIS parents were non-observant Jews. Then the article calls HIM a Jew. 1738:). As you were a participant in the original thread, I would very much appreciate your comments as to whether the proposed remedy satisfies your concerns. Thanks, —Tim /// 2964:

I too thank you for the discussion. It's OK we don't see eye-to-eye on this. It's a difficult point to get and one that requires some reflection. You have all my best.....

1331:

It's pretty obvious that the attacks on my repeated advocating of following Knowledge (XXG) rules on properly researching and neutrally sourcing BLP names and place names

1430:, where he also died. I also wonder where they got the year of his settling in Chicago and other details re earlier life, hopefully they will publish all that sometime. 4676:

Hi there. With all due respect, this article is beyond the truth from the references provided. Please take it to the article talk page if you feel different. Thank you.

4280: 3884:

I'm really puzzled by the vehemence of the opposition to the bright line rule, not from people who want a better or stronger rule (as I do), but from people who want

3322: 3314: 3151: 4473:

Yes, we do need Wdford to comment. He meant well but I never did want those articles spun off. See the old archive for the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article

162: 432: 4266: 3787: 3776: 530:, and for requesting focus saying: It is only slightly more wordy to say, "that comment makes no sense because ..." than to say, "you're an idiot", - you are an 3783: 3706: 3682: 3473:

I suggest if you are using a website and you dont know how to cite just copy and paste the web address. Moreover, if the information should go in the article

3338: 1946: 4476:- the section called Spin-off article and the one above it. I was away when that happened. Of course, it wasn't done to confuse editors. I don't know who did 2424:

If RS biography of your cousin's mom discusses her cathlocity then it would be "right" to describe her as Catholic. The metrics are established by sourcing.

4949: 1772: 1093: 358: 4978:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

2499:

When the issue has to do with his parentage, as "Jewish" does than that is what you are discussing. I am just finishing reading a modern biography about

5177:

Thanks for removing the duplicate - might be the same bug that causes editors to get an edit conflict while at the same time the edit is actually saved.

2150: 2141: 891:

using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

156: 3372: 361:. To be clear, I'm not disputing how you closed the discussion, more how the discussion was handled. In any case, you are welcome to participate. Best, 2033:

I am sorry. I meant to respond earlier but it got away for me, unfortunately my time and inclination do not lead me to a favorable response. Thanks.

1957: 1735: 948:

We hope you enjoy maintaining Knowledge (XXG) with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at

2684:

Really? Well, if you find a source that goes into detail about Roy Kohn's lack of Jewishness, it is probably also a commentary on his Jewishness.

4206:

amending the original decision has now been proposed. You are welcome to add comments on this motion underneath your original statement. Thanks,

3064: 3051: 2408:

Mona Lisa is beautiful", you can't really argue with that heckler, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe the heckler is right.....

2713:

No more subjective per se than his genes, his family, his culture, his nation, his time period, or the myriad of factors, which make up a life.

731:

Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).

4648: 4573: 1965: 1249: 4965: 3986:. There's lots of news this month for the Knowledge (XXG) Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... 1953: 1272:, and it's surely not Knowledge (XXG)'s job to correct names that are "wrong", "because MOS says so"—or to rewrite history, for that matter. 888: 5080: 2663:- Those are the relevant metrics inside WP. I'm talking outside WP. Forgetting WP for a second, can you point to the yardsstick I mentioned? 2078: 4762: 4975: 1961: 1896: 4377:, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. 2314:(which seems to be the primary source of his notability), and 3) I don't see any evidence to suggest that he self identified as Jewish. 1574: 3944: 3187:. For my own education would you mind pointing me to the relevant guideline/policy that you are applied in this instance? best wishes 2091: 2008: 1161:, how civil of you. No, you can't put your fist through the screen and punch somebody in the face on the internet. Therefore, I wrote 569: 445: 307: 4061: 3758:

This barnstar is awarded in recognition of your contributions to building the evidence base for the Chelsea Manning move. Well done!

3420: 4562: 1941:, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge (XXG) is acceptable. Please go to 4485: 4477: 3296:

I would suggest you reread what the tags say, and that you review your own edits in making such outlandish claims of disruption.

2095: 2012: 449: 311: 764: 4758: 3594:

are no longer functional. You've been identified as a user of STiki, and are kindly asked to upgrade to the current version at

3598:

before continuing with use of the tool. Continuing to use older versions will be detrimental to the STiki project. Please see

4299:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

2503:

that goes on at length about her personal beliefs and how she was not a Catholic in the sense that the Pope's of her day, or

2184:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

1539:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

181:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

1638:) 16:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC) On second thought I think your new link will be lost when that's archived, can you lock it? 932: 757: 286: 4734:

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

1320:. Obviously it was just to keep me blocked and prevent me from defending myself at ANI. Konjakupoet has outed himself with 3854: 3821: 1006:

That's what was said. I was referring to the Arbcom decision that stated that the consensus is embodied in the Irish MOS,

734:

Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Knowledge (XXG) will see it).

138: 4916: 4240: 2507:

would define Catholic belief (more into superstition, culture, and political use) but we would still categorize her as a

2129: 1480: 118: 3958: 812: 798: 3150:!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes 2888:

still argue about it nonetheless because they choose to replace real work with their feelings or personal experiences.

1321: 1097: 4600: 3143: 1088: 1072: 1823: 2570:- Ok. So you agree then that there are multiple definitions, which is good because by inference you agree there are 2440:"If RS biography of your cousin's mom discusses her cathlocity then it would be "right" to describe her as Catholic" 4979: 4961: 4300: 4286: 2984:

to agree on each other's feelings and ideology, but on sources and evidence the community can reach a consensus.

2910:

was really Serbian. One could points to RSs which specifically said he was and others that pointed to the contrary.

2279: 2185: 2171: 1837: 1658:

It's a permanent link to a specific version of the page from history, so the link won't be lost when it's archived.

1540: 1526: 1269: 825: 182: 168: 4857: 4829: 4800: 4714: 4528: 4365:

is wishing Alan Season's Greetings and thanks for the DYKs! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes

4146: 3870: 3835: 3482: 3438: 3395: 3301: 3222: 3160:

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge!

3088:

created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page

2989: 2937: 2893: 2859: 2786: 2751: 2718: 2689: 2646: 2610: 2557: 2516: 2469: 2429: 2376: 2358: 2198: 2038: 1856: 1758: 1718: 1682: 1643: 1635: 1594: 1435: 1367: 1226: 1198: 1060: 1023: 1015: 682: 642: 556: 231: 195: 92: 17: 4474: 4454: 4435: 3725: 1920:

Non-free rationale for File:File-Susan Blow (Columbia) and Elizabeth Harrison (National-Louis) Kindergarten.jpg

1501: 1492: 1055:

We can all reason together, one hopes. Glad you are back, by the by (even if I do think Hungarian was OK ;)).

862: 1207:? "Whether it was hostile is more of an intent thing". Never mind, not worth spending any more keypresses on. 4809:

So when you talked about the outcome of the RfC in the past tense, you knew that the RfC is still ongoing? --

1910: 1906: 5054: 5023: 4581: 4128: 3927: 3054:. Your contributions are important to improving Knowledge (XXG)! I wanted to share a few updates with you: 2175: 2155: 1578: 957: 5076: 3791: 3599: 1570: 949: 5072: 4909: 4233: 3938: 3894: 3763: 2225: 2159: 2122: 2087: 2004: 1473: 577: 539: 441: 303: 111: 4369:, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a 4016:

Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

920: 4921: 4698: 4683: 4412: 4357: 4245: 3502: 3416: 3284: 2275: 2134: 1827: 1485: 818: 123: 4366: 4296: 2181: 1703:

Pudgy fingers and trying to use a watchlist on a small tablet should be avoided! Thanks for fixing it.

1536: 480: 178: 2848: 2500: 2344: 1147: 5182: 5125: 4937: 4928: 4853: 4825: 4796: 4710: 4656: 4524: 4493: 4481: 4142: 4004:

Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

3866: 3831: 3636: 3562: 3478: 3434: 3391: 3297: 3218: 3180: 3165: 2985: 2933: 2907: 2889: 2855: 2782: 2747: 2714: 2685: 2642: 2606: 2553: 2512: 2465: 2425: 2372: 2354: 2194: 2034: 1973: 1852: 1754: 1714: 1678: 1668: 1639: 1631: 1620: 1590: 1431: 1389: 1363: 1353: 1316: 1301: 1293: 1277: 1257: 1222: 1194: 1056: 1019: 1011: 788: 678: 638: 552: 429:

User_talk:Fram#Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion.2FAshton_Kutcher_on_Twitter_.282nd_nomination.29

343: 227: 191: 88: 77: 40: 2527:"When the issue has to do with his parentage, as "Jewish" does than that is what you are discussing" 2099: 2016: 1991: 773: 714: 484: 453: 315: 250: 4631: 4450: 4431: 4404: 4168:'s programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this 4010:

OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

3380: 3184: 3103: 3099: 2588:

Similarly, some sources may call the Mona Lisa beautiful. That doesn't mean the Mona IS beautiful.

2060: 1117: 1045: 858: 215: 54:

Hi, I just emailed your code again. Let me know if you need anything or it doesn't work. Cheers,

4750: 1995: 5160: 5050: 5019: 4888: 4780:. Would I be right in saying that you have commented at AN/I without having looked at the RfC? -- 4577: 4554: 4124: 3998:

Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

3711: 3669:. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at 3543: 3464: 3325:. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at 3239: 3195: 2504: 1787: 1506: 1212: 1182: 953: 700: 663: 3710:

listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact

3595: 3591: 940: 911: 904: 896: 610: 509: 5079:

that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at

944:- Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! 4945: 4746: 4596: 4316: 4049: 3934: 3890: 3759: 3131: 2218: 2082: 1999: 1743: 1451: 1426:

Too bad about the lack of RS, but that's that. It makes allot of sense that he would be from

1415: 573: 535: 436: 366: 298: 5116: 4169: 4141:

Terrible decision. I have responded at Fluffernutters talk page for the sake of the editor.

3411:

Mammal-Reptile House over others; I'm just adding new parts to articles when I feel like it.

2103: 2020: 1938: 737:

You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

457: 319: 5093: 5012: 4693: 4678: 4558: 4514: 4408: 4381: 4350: 3952: 3804: 3587: 3412: 3349: 3280: 3119: 3004: 2972: 2918: 2878: 2844: 2772: 2736: 2704: 2675: 2629: 2593: 2542: 2490: 2454: 2413: 2340: 2311: 2257: 2246: 1809: 1427: 5186: 5164: 5132: 5098: 5058: 5027: 4995: 4892: 4861: 4847: 4833: 4818: 4804: 4789: 4766: 4718: 4663: 4635: 4613: 4585: 4532: 4517: 4497: 4458: 4439: 4416: 4318: 4216: 4178: 4165: 4150: 4132: 4115: 4080: 4052: 3968: 3898: 3874: 3857: 3839: 3824: 3809: 3767: 3731: 3691: 3648: 3566: 3547: 3513: 3486: 3468: 3442: 3424: 3399: 3384: 3355: 3305: 3288: 3250: 3226: 3214: 3206: 3169: 3038: 3008: 2993: 2976: 2941: 2922: 2897: 2882: 2863: 2790: 2776: 2755: 2740: 2722: 2708: 2693: 2679: 2650: 2633: 2614: 2597: 2561: 2546: 2520: 2494: 2473: 2458: 2433: 2417: 2380: 2362: 2283: 2261: 2229: 2202: 2108: 2064: 2042: 2025: 1977: 1964:

and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the

1860: 1843: 1812: 1792: 1762: 1747: 1722: 1707: 1686: 1672: 1647: 1624: 1598: 1589:

Can you link to what you are referring to or at least tell me when and where the edit was?

1582: 1557: 1456: 1439: 1420: 1393: 1371: 1357: 1305: 1281: 1261: 1230: 1215: 1202: 1185: 1121: 1064: 1049: 1027: 1000: 961: 866: 832: 792: 704: 686: 667: 646: 626: 606: 581: 560: 543: 495: 462: 411: 370: 347: 324: 235: 219: 199: 96: 81: 58: 44: 5178: 5120: 4651: 4507:

Thank you for the reply. I removed the comment and your reply. Hope that's good with you.

4489: 4370: 4270: 4022:

WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

3992:

3644: 3558: 3509: 3161: 3107: 2951: 2929: 2661:"There is agreeable metrics that work throughout the project, following relevant sources." 2485:

You could say my cousin's Mom was a lapsed Catholic. You can't say my cousin is catholic.

2394: 2368: 1969: 1902: 1783:

far less combative and far less tolerant of dramamongers, and perhaps I'll see you there.

1664: 1616: 1530: 1385: 1349: 1297: 1273: 1253: 784: 632:

No. Your edits have demonstrated conduct, competence, and bias problems. That is not an

339: 152: 73: 36: 4028:

Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

984: 258: 3675:

Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes.

1934:

File:File-Susan Blow (Columbia) and Elizabeth Harrison (National-Louis) Kindergarten.jpg

1886:

File:File-Susan Blow (Columbia) and Elizabeth Harrison (National-Louis) Kindergarten.jpg

1873:

File:File-Susan Blow (Columbia) and Elizabeth Harrison (National-Louis) Kindergarten.jpg

769:

Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage

4843: 4814: 4785: 4627: 4449:

I have now withdrawn all DRNs and wish to proceed with AN/ANI. Please advise. Regards,

4374: 4261: 4252: 3376: 3127: 3111: 2056: 1143: 1113: 1041: 622: 428: 407: 211: 5071:

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of

4969: 4958:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 2529:- Wait wait. I feel we are discussing too different things. We are discussing whether 5156: 5112: 4884: 4214: 3536: 3460: 3232: 3188: 3123: 3085: 1553: 1510: 1208: 1178: 1018:) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC) In short, no one is writing on a blank slate here. 996: 696: 659: 594:

I said I wouldn't respond in the discussion about sources on twin cities to any more

527: 335: 143: 130: 1131: 4604: 4310: 4091:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for creation/International Association of Geoanalysts

3745: 3331:

Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes.

3147: 3135: 2154:

is housed in a former stables, built in a dramatic architectural style named for a

1753:

Thanks for the invite. Awaiting to see how RAN responds to all that substantively.

1739: 1704: 1446: 1410: 523: 362: 148: 4551:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Transclusion

2371:. We actually need agreed upon guidance and metrics to reach actual consensus. -- 4283:. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 2168:. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 1523:. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 165:. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 5084: 4608: 4509: 4290: 4274: 4175: 3948: 3795: 3687: 3620: 3342: 3000: 2968: 2914: 2874: 2840: 2768: 2732: 2700: 2671: 2625: 2589: 2538: 2533:

should be categorized as Jewish, right? Not about whether his parents should be.

2486: 2450: 2409: 2336: 2253: 1806: 1034: 781: 748: 743: 492: 280: 254: 242: 55: 4407:

regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays.

4073: 1341:

were the result of off-wiki canvassing and mob organizing that is acknowledged

780:

Thanks for helping make Knowledge (XXG) better. Enjoy your research! Cheers,

172: 4988: 3640: 3505: 3115: 1138:

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year!

596: 387: 1895:

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for

4839: 4810: 4781: 4332: 4089:

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at

2166:

Template:Did you know nominations/Institute of Puerto Rican Arts and Culture

1342: 1139: 618: 403: 5008:

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

4547:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#The Rfc section

4540:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#The Rfc section

1252:

submission. While you are not a party, your comments would be appreciated.

269: 4753:

will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

4576:

on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you.

4044:

only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the

2537:

no biographer in the world would dispute whether she was really catholic?

2401:

there are no metrics when it comes to race/ethnicity/religious affiliation

751:

along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Knowledge (XXG)).

674: 5047:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

5036:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

4096:

To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.

3679:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop

3671:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence

3602:

for a discussion of this issue or to respond to this message. Thank you!

3139: 2318: 2303: 1549: 992: 3269: 2399:- That's really what I want. You call for "metrics", but the problem is 1899:, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided. 5145:

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Cities for a

3371:. The clarification helps answer a question I posted to the talk page ( 1105:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar

1040:

Excellent suggestion - many thanks. I hope the drive-by editor agrees.

988: 968: 726: 3786:

regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the

2903:

objective/subjective difference) between the former and latter traits?

2386:"Jewish home by Jewish people would have some influence on their life" 4933:, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was 3231:

Great that clarifies it for me. Thanks for taking the time to answer

2913:

You still haven't pointed to a yardstick for measuring Catholicness.

1937:. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under 1514: 2967:

P.S. Told you this conversation would spiral out of controls. ;-)

1990:

I am looking for another Chicagoan to assume some responsibility in

952:

and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks!

357:

Hi Alan. I've taken a CfD you closed to deletion review, please see

2367:

Moreover, your standard-less "controversial", smacks too much of a

4749:

was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of

3037: 1445:

some good suggestions for getting it through at a second attempt.—

359:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2012 July 2#Category redirects

3084:

for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement.

2760:

Didn't Einstein show that time was relative? But regardless......

1010:

that it is (still) consistent with current article title policy.

695:

Saw that there. Thank you for your consideration. What a mess!

3667:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute

3635:

I award you the Socratic Barnstar for your participation in the

3373:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Verifiability/Archive 61#removing citations

2321:

is or is not Jewish. Merely that WP ought not list him as such.

3433:

they like. And thanks for your work in progress, by the way.

4904: 4228: 4207: 3575: 2117: 1468: 253:, I would like to thank you for editorial efforts that helped 106: 522:

Thank you for your contributions to quality articles such as

4257:, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was 4072: 3335:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop

3327:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence

2624:

unqualified manner on WP that "The Mona Lisa is beautiful".

2317:

All that said, I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing

2306:

is inappropriately categorized as Jewish b/c, following the

2146:, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was 1923: 1497:, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was 1311:

Thanks for supporting Fair Play, Reliable Sources, and NPOV.

1130: 135:, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was 1994:. Would you be willing to lead or co-lead the 2013 Chicago 1521:

Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Curtenius Roosevelt

1092:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

5013:

Talk:Gun_control#RfC:_Remove_Nazi_gun_control_argument.3F

1517:

as having "outstanding indigenous cultural achievements"?

4099:

If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the

2574:

ways it can be defined (i.e. you agree it's subjective).

4777: 4742: 4623: 4107: 4100: 3904:

Books and Bytes: The Knowledge (XXG) Library Newsletter

3849: 3815:

Manning RM procedure note -- misplaced or misformatted?

3369: 3273: 2326:

What is meant by "relevant to the subjects notability"?

2297: 1613: 1610: 1332: 1158: 1086:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

850: 846: 808: 69: 32: 4956:

Template:Did you know nominations/John Silvanus Wilson

3677:

You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage,

3504:

and clarify how you feel about other options? Thanks,

3368:

Thank you for clarifying Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability

3333:

You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage,

3034:

World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership Newsletter

2668:"biographical sources it is not treated like "beauty," 1268:

Airports—for example—are free to choose names with or

1248:

Hello Alan, Happy New Year. I've mentioned you in an

4568:

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

4538: 4123:

Thank you for your contributions to Knowledge (XXG)!

2959:"feel another's feelings, nor rely on thier ideology" 72:

very insightful and thought provoking. Good work! --

4954: