User talk:Slrubenstein.html



It is currently 20:12 where I am

Please place any questions or comments for me at the bottom of this page. Thanks.

Archives

1 - Mostly Exra Wax, Stevertigo, and questions about Jewish articles and anti-semitism 2 - Mostly DNA and genes, WHEELER and fascism 3 - some discussion of capitalism; debates on whether Jesus existed, and the cultural and historical background for Jesus 4 - Jesus, Jesus, Jesus 5 - Cheese Dreams and Jesus; race and evolution, capitalism, circumcision 6 - BCE/CE versus BC/AD 7 - BCE/CE versus BC/AD; FT2 and Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus 8 - Jesus, Bible, anti-Semitism, Martin Luthor, and the tip of the Virago iceberg 9 10 11 12 13 - The Bible, Evolution, Filllllll, Jesus, Race, advice for new admins 14 - a lot of race and intelligence stuff 15 - Fascism, Pharisees, and Race 16 - race, ethnicity and NOR 17 September 2007 18 October & November 2007 19 December 2007 20 January-February 2008 (Figs, psychohistory, ethnicity) 21 March-April 2008, Collenthegret and Epf 22 March- May 2008, R&I, Jagz, Jews and Christians 23 24 25 26 27

Disruptive editing, block policy, dealing with trolling

Greetings. I've been thinking about this too, and it's a tricky one. Blocking for disruptive editing is already in policy here, but the type of disruption we're concerned with is not on that list. To do anything useful I think we'd have to amend the blocking policy itself (good luck on that!) before attempting to make the WP:DE page policy. Or do you think I'm getting it backwards? At any rate WP:DE should expand and explain what is already in the blocking policy. The core of the issue is this, which you perceptively identified: a series of edits may be disruptive, even though no individual edit may violate any policy. Identifying those disruptive groups of edits as such requires intangible qualities sometimes known collectively as common sense, and I'm not sure how to either teach that, or write it in such a way as to be enforceable policy. In a way -- and I'm more than half-serious about this -- I wish every candidate for adminship had to pass a "which editor is the troll" test of some type. Antandrus (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Contact

Please contact me using my email. I think you'll find it to be worthwhile. -- Fyslee / talk 05:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP prod

I thought you'd be interested in and might like to comment on the above. RMHED (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Slrubenstein)

Hello, Slrubenstein. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII, where you may want to participate. -- Charles Matthews (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A Different Look

Slrubenstein. ---I noticed that you have an interest in Ethnic subjects. Can you please take a look at [[Talk: Dutch (ethnic group)]. We could sure use another viewpoint about Flemish/Dutch ethnicity. Thank You--Buster7 (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy changes

Slrubenstein, trying to rewrite longstanding policy, while you are in the middle of a user conduct RfC which cites that policy, is a really bad idea. If you'd like to participate at the policy talkpage, go ahead, but please stop editing the policy directly. Thanks, --Elonka 04:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, please tell me what edit specifically that I made which changes "longstanding policy?" Slrubenstein | Talk 15:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, this relates to a long standing "best practice" or norm, for experienced seasoned admins ("communicate"), that's a relatively new edit to the policy. A concern over COI might reasonably exist, especially given removal (reverted by another admin). It would probably be sensible for Slrubenstein to contribute at the policy's talk page, to prevent any issues for the while. But this is not about a longstanding part of the policy page as such. Much more to the point, an assessment of Slrubenstein's editing should not assume that text was in the policy when the events at RFC happened. They were probably norms, probably best practice, probably good judgement and commonsense. Quite possibly they (or something like them) should have been in the policy and followed by admins, and a number of admin disputes wouldn't have gone the way they did if they had been. Possibly it was a lapse of judgement in some cases, for admins not to think of them anyway, whether in the policy page or not, and it's possible that adding them will codify the need to communicate fully as "best practices" and norms, and help the community. But they weren't in that page, back then. So Slrubenstein should (whatever happens) not feel the ground is being shifted under his feet, for example. It isn't. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi FT2, I didn't see any harm in moving the content closer to the front of the policy. I see that you have made some changes. For the most part I appreciate your maintaning the spirit of my edits. I still have some concerns I expressed on the talk page. However, my main point is that there should be wider community discussion before anyone changes the policy.Slrubenstein | Talk 15:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My solidarity with you

Fellow Wikipedian, Slrubenstein, thank you for requesting me to weigh in on this Rfc concerning you. As you know I have the highest respect for you, and I know that you always conduct your affairs with fairness and justice. I am sure that no other conclusion can be reached in this; however, I will read through the material. Shalom and goodspeed here.--Drboisclair (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Very sad to see this spat being dragged out, and Charles Matthews doing so much to draw public attention to allegedly confidential information. A point of disagreement: you wrote "Mervyn Emrys posted information about himself on his user page. he added content to an article, and mathsci provided us with information about the source." All the information about the source which Mervyn Emrys added to the article is public, available on Amazon.com using the information which Mervyn posted. Obscurity is not security. Perhaps mathsci could have been more discreet about drawing attention to publically available information, but then more discretion all round would be a good idea. . . dave souza, talk 11:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the Flemish/Dutch...I will read it shortly. I have already commented at the Rfc. See:Outside view from Ramdrake..#4)--Buster7 (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your RfC

I believe you have a broken link right after this sentence: A lack of transparency is at best a red herring and at worst compounds the abuse of power I agree with Jehochman's point that Charles's block was utterly lacking in transparency, as the link leads to a diff which has no relationship whatsoever with what you're saying. You may want to look again into it. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Works now. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Freddy

Hi Slrubenstein, I'd just like to compliment you on your patience above and beyond the call of duty in this case. I very much hope Freddy repays your faith by becoming less tiresome and belligerent. Yours worriedly (if that's a word) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR question

I was wondering if you could give your opinion on an issue, since you have been instrumental in writing and defining the WP:NOR policy. I'm having a dispute with another editor at Second intifada. He has added links to a series of articles as references for the sentence "Some view the start to be the September 28 2000 riots and injuries soon after Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount/Al-Haram As-Sharif." The sources are descriptions of the riots, and are reliable enough primary sources regarding them, but do not actually make the claim that September 28 was the start of the Second intifada, or that that "some view" it as the start. I've removed the references as a violation of WP:SYNTH, and potentially of WP:V. However, another editor insists that because they are reliable sources, they can be added "as description of the events". The discussion is here: Talk:Second_Intifada#WP:NOR_based_on_primary_sources. I'd appreciate third party views. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving assistance

Slrubenstein, hi, I noticed that your talkpage was getting kind of long. If you'd like, I could set up an archivebot for you? Then it would automatically archive any threads which had been inactive for a certain period of time. You could still maintain the index manually, but this way you wouldn't have to keep up with the routine archiving itself. Would this be of interest to you? --Elonka 23:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. It'll start archiving on the next pulse, which should be sometime within the next 24 hours. It'll archive any threads which have been inactive for more than 30 days, and move them into your subpage at /Archive 22, until it reaches a size of 100K, at which point the bot will automatically move to the next number. I did move a few of your existing archive pages from "/archive ##" to "/Archive ##" (capital "A") so things would work properly. Oh, and if you want the maxarchivesize to be different, or the "age" of archiveable threads to be different, that's easily changed, just let me know and I can tweak as needed. :) --Elonka 18:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that the bot tried to archive, but you reverted.[1] What was the problem? Too much archived at one time? I can tweak, if you tell me what the concerns were. --Elonka 04:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-exclusive ethic group

Apparently, the link was added today. It was not in the article prior to today.

That's nonsense. I saw it there several years ago. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you did, but you could not have seen it there yesterday, or a year ago, or two years ago, because it wasn't there. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

I've placed myself on editor review at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cosmic_Latte, and I'm reaching out for feedback to editors who seem to be reasonably familiar with my work. If you have a moment to comment there, your feedback would be most appreciated. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Freddyboytoy

..seems to be dodging his block as Idiotsonwackipedia (talk · contribs) --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Year 0

Year 0 was a key element in the plan of Cleopatra VII's political and social system called the "new era". Here's a good article if want to shed light on the backgrounds. http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-028.htmlZebra2016 (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article, it is a term paper. It doesn't shed light on anything, it is a university' students thoughtful speculation but not based as far as I can tell on real research in classical languages using primary sources following established historical methods. The bibliography is short, many secondary sources. Reliable sources would be articles in peer-reviewed journals. The best ones are not online, you need to go to a library. This term paper does not mention a year 0. In ancient times calendars were often reset to 0 with the establishment of a new king or dynasty, though, so I do not see anything especially interesting here. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting, I take em as good interpretation on this. Thank you. Zebra2016 (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

While I was passing

You sir, as I've noted in other places, are a very wise man, all the more obvious because of the humility with which you express your wisdom. I am very glad you are not involved in my case at ArbCom, though no doubt you've seen it. I am sorry if my views or handling of the case have disappointed you. If you haven't seen it, don't go there, there's nothing interesting in it. But this is about you, not me.

What grabs me about your wisdom is that you often speak of things others are not always familiar with, but circumstances have been teaching me. I am merely informed by thinking about what I experience. You appear to have a weight of experience you bring to discussions. I'm sure we'd disagree about many things, but you are a champion of precisely the right vision of Wikipedia, and of community, in my opinion. It has a lot in common with traditional models of academic discourse. My teachers in Philosophy advocated what they called "rational consensus", both elements were significant.

What caught my eye was your defence against heirarchical models of Wikipedia administration, while acknowledging some necessity for this. Indeed! I expect no reply, and didn't familiarise myself with what you were discussing to have an opinion on the issue you were addressing. But having seen you in other talk pages, practising what you preach, I want you to know that the little I've seen of you has always struck me as exemplary of what a Wikipedian can be. I suspect you have been deeply involved in this project and at strategic points of discussion in various ways that have enhanced and guided the project because of your wisdom. I do hope the project hasn't become so big and popular that too much noise is drowning out its original wise ideals.

Is it possible that ideals you have such a clear grasp of are so successful they lead to their own demise? I'm sure you've asked yourself such questions, and imagine your partial answers are more useful than anything I'd have to offer. I hope I have seen clearly enough to encourage you.

I thank God for my involvement at Wiki, and one of the greatest treasures I've found here is your soul. Sorry for any embarassment my compliments may cause you. I have a reflex to express praise, that perhaps I should redirect in some other way. Respect and best wishes, Alastair Haines (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Yes, good ideas a long time ago have brought a rich harvest. I wonder if part of a problem is that ideas communicate better via lots of personal contact than by documentation and formal systems. Perhaps personal contact, multiple shared experience of resolving issues, is a powerful force that needs to be recaptured. Some Wiki projects achieve it, others don't.

I learn lots of things at Wiki, people are infinitely variable, or at least variable beyond a life time of experience. I'm not sure I find most challenges in interactions with people on the grounds of differences. Differences prompt my curiosity and all sorts of adapting strategies. Where I find challenges most commonly is with people who are most alike, that's where things can get cramped.

Then, I am not a fan of modern Western culture. Mass-market careerism, consumerism and self-determination all reflect social changes associated with wealth and some of the justice that wealth can both afford and generate. There is much good, but it brings new problems.

I think Wiki works as a social networking site as a side-effect of people gathering around common interests. It's a fascinating community to study. My own preference is definitely English second language areas, I meet people very different and with communication limitations, yet there seem to be "constants of human-ness", and these seem to lie in the area of values. Though there is variation in those too, I fancy that some value-differences are actually deviations from a canonical ideal leading to different sets of social issues.

Anyway, I'm probably speaking twaddle, it's very late (early) here and I must sleep. I'll think more about your words when I wake up. Kind of you to reply. Shalom Alastair Haines (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure my current issues are that much concern in the long term. When I get a chance I will familiarise myself with what is going on with SV and the various lines of thought. I will try to understand your perspective and reflect it to you. I may very well agree 100%, especially as I'm sure you'll show appreciation of alternative views. But the point is, I want to encourage you that you are not alone in caring. Also, I want to encourage you that there are many scattered idealists who would love to learn from Wikipedians like you. I will spend some time meditating and brainstorming possibilities. But, God willing that I'm not banned in the meantime, when I get back to you, I'd love to hear your thoughts first. You've been thinking about this waaaay longer than me. Enough for now, until we meet again. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Race

Thanks for your comment about my post. I tend to think that what I said in my post is already covered in the article. Was there anything specific you had in mind? I like Long and Kittles quote, it's my favourite expression of this idea, I like the "samples of size N" phrase, I think it's amusing, it might be good to quote this in the article, though I'm leery of too many quotations. Alun (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Jewish friend

The Brights movement seems to be a British thing. I once said, "I seem to be pretty bright (intelligent) but not too Bright (naturalistic thinking)." In other words, I don;t seem to have much cnfidence in my sense of common Sense.

Can you tell that my typing skills are rusty? I wish I could hire someone to take dictation,

I would like you to send word to my sister, Dawn Marie Vanderhyde, nvywfe72@ yahoo.com, NAVy WiFE, DMV, &c. She is my durable power of attorney for medical affairs. We've talked enough that she knows I consuder you to be another sister, or at least a tolkienish Elf-friend. Dawn knows who SOPHIA is, anyway. I'm going down the membershio roll at User:Archola/The_Centrist_Fellowship. Dawny Dawny Doo, where are you?

I am suffering from lung cancer that invaded the human brain and required brain surgery. Trying to coordinate information in my environment is like waiting for the Pony Express. (Coordination is going to be difficult suce the lung tumor invaded my brain through the Cerebellum-Spinocerebellar tract complex. Oh, joy! Not to mention that I heard the doctors here at Skilled Neurosurgery discussing with my sis that they were planning to remove a bone from my skull and let my neck muscles support the back of my head.