User talk:Boodlesthecat

Family Feline Fun'Family Feline Fun'Family Feline Fun'Family Feline Fun

Colfax massacre

Thanks for your encouragement. I've taken a first stab at editing it, so you can let me know what you think. You could improve the article by adding specific citations from your references, in addition to listing them below.--Parkwells (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader Presidential Elections

Any help you can offer to make this article compliant with WP:NPOV is greatly appreciated. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the time to look at the main Ralph Nader article's editing history, you can see that the Atlantic quote in question, which was originally there, was moved here by compromise. I have been involved with these articles for over six months. What gives you the right to violate this compromise that was reached after a whole lot of haggling? Please respect other editors' wishes and let this comment stay. Otherwise, I will have to insert it back in the main article and revisit the compromise arguments there. Moreover, as to the Ralph Nader article itself, where is the POV in this: "Nader's greatest impact was in Florida in the 2000 election, where George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes and Nader's 97,421 votes tilted the election in Bush's favor." You can't disagree that his campaign in 2000 had more of an impact than his other campaigns, right? And if you agree with that statement, then you have to explain why it had an impact. I don't know how much more carefully I can tread without stepping on hypersensitive toes. Griot (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked to provide a source for the unsourced "tilted the election" statement. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I deleted a comment of yours. I did it by accident, I assure you. Now my question is how to address the fact that Nader's biggest impact was in 2000. That belongs at the top of both articles. No more white-washing, please. Nader would have been a footnote to the elections if not for his role in 2000 in Florida. I'd appreciate if you wouldn't insist on glozing over this fact, as much as you may dislike it. Griot (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You offered and we had agreed that you would supply sources for your claims (you said you could find hundreds). Yet you persist in reverting the unsourced claims in the lead and susbstituting rhetoric and accusations of "whitewashing." This is not a substitute for a reliable source. You are not keeping your agreement; I will revert out the claims until you supply reliable sources for it as you PROMISED--that's fair. Boodlesthecat (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

newspaper article

Hi there, I'm a reporter working on an article about Wikipedia and I would love to speak with you. May I send you an email to try to set up an interview? Thanks for your time.Marynega (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which newspaper?Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ralph Nader. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gwernol 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This warning also applies to Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns Gwernol 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

newspaper article follow-up

Hi again, I'm a reporter with SF Weekly newspaper. My email address is Mary.Spicuzza@sfweekly.com May I give you a call to interview you for the article I'm writing about Wikipedia? Thanks for your time, Mary71.5.63.2 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

trying again

Sorry--I forgot to sign that last one. I'm a reporter with SF Weekly newspaper. My email address is Mary.Spicuzza@sfweekly.com Thanks for your time, MaryMarynega (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gonzalez

Now you've followed me to the Matt Gonzalez article. C'mon man, gimme a break. You don't know the City or its politics. Your editing there was strictly personal. Griot (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for discussion. Please refrain from using my talk page for your speculations and insults, and rude advice on what I can and cannot edit. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cat. Griot (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to take this back to your Talk page, since your edits at this article obviously don't pertain to Matt Gonzales, but to me. You dislike me so you followed me to this article, where you've been cutting huge portions of it out without regard to the fact that the material is sourced and arrived at by many editors who preceeded you. That is unfair to me and other editors. I answered your queries on the Talk page. Cut it out, wouldya? Griot (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Matt Gonzalez. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gwernol 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gwernol 20:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boodlesthecat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please review my edits and talk pages on Matt Gonzalez and the WP:BLP/N I posted for that article; Ralph Nader; and Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns. My edits and those of half a dozen others on the Nader pages have been plagued by incessant edit warring and multiple reverts without explanation and flagrant policy disregard by Griot, an editor with a self professed personal grudge against Ralph Nader.

Decline reason:

Complaining about the conduct of another editor is not a reason why you should be unblocked. — Sandstein (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In reply to your e-mail: You are blocked because of your own actions. Each editor is judged on his or her own merits. Enumerating the bad things that the other editor has allegedly done is not an argument that addresses the only pertinent question here: how, specifically, did your block violate our blocking policy and should therefore be lifted? Sandstein (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and re Nader article

Hi. I'm basically in agreement with Ralph Nader's views. I'm trying hard to make the article accurate and NPOV. If you and I should disagree, it's probably over minor matters of rhetoric. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Elections

I guess I stand corrected as to whether the presidential articles are biographical. Nevertheless, whether his supporters can handle it, I think our man Nader is a big boy with a good strong backbone, and he can handle criticism in person or on Wikipedia. These criticisms are not malicious or gratuitous--but let's let others decide, eh? I think you and I have been around this subject once too often. BTW, you put your comment on my User page, not my Talk page. If you want to address me in future, please do so on my Talk page. User pages are meant only for their owners. Feedler (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boodles, I'm afraid User:Feedler is a sock puppet of User:Griot. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You too, huh? You're in the paranoid category? Griot (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns

You as well as anybody knows that it took a long time to reach the compromise that made up the opening paragraphy of this article. Yet you delete it wholesale. Why? And then you accuse me of being a sockpuppet merely because I disagree with you. Why do you do this? And Moonriddengirl is not an authority on which quote should be in an article. Please respect the editors there as well. People are going to disagree with you on Wiki, and that's okay. You have to realize that. Griot (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where compromises were reached on this passage. Please click the links and observe how other editors rejected your edit:

Please respect other editors. Griot (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, compromises are reached in discussion pages, not proclaimed in article edits, as you seem to think from the diffs you offer above. You have a unique view of what a "compromise" is. feel free to try again. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sedlam is a sock puppet of User:Griot. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude has a closetfull of socks ;)Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, Boodles, no doubt. Sad, really. Have you seen this yet? Gadzooks, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evola and the Jews

The Evola article states: Evola further held that Jewish people denigrated lofty "Aryan" ideals (of faith, loyalty, courage, devotion, and constancy) through a "corrosive irony" that ascribed every human activity to economic or sexual motives (à la Marx and Freud). — Do you perhaps know where this is from and able to cite it? Because that's quite a controversial statement and needs to be sourced. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt write it but I'll look for a source, though it's hardly any more controversial than any of this fascist's other anti-Semitic pronouncements. Boodlesthecat (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but why did you remove the part about Freud and Marx? I found that particularly interesting and in need of a source. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out, I didn't write it, and don't have a source to verify it. You can leave it in but it will probably stay tagged for a very long time, since much of this artcile was written in an essay fashion without references. Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added to ANI Noticeboard

Hi Boodles, I added User:Griot persistent violations to ANI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. He has deleted content on article talk pages and reverted inappropriate comments my talk page as well. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie indeed Boodles! A million of 'em :) 76.87.47.110 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, by the way, I agree that it would be in your interest to open a user account; makes things less confusing and distracts from the valid complaint you have. Cheers Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about it, maybe I'm commitment phobic :) 76.87.47.110 (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Telogen

I must say, with all the evidence against User:Griot, and the many incivility warnings I've noted with this new User:Calton, there is something not right about this. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate attempt by a desperate editor who got B-U-S-T-E-D. It's classic online pathology. Enjoy the show! Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos Boodles! :) Btw, I'm reporting User:Calton for incivility on the ANI board. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like your "anonymous friend" got blocked -- again -- this time for six months. Looks like you'll have to buy your own doughnuts.

Now, what was this about "desperate editor" and "classic online pathology"? Boy, that sounds like incivility to me -- or possibly aimed in the wrong direction. Is this name-calling a privilege you're reserving for yourself? --Calton | Talk 11:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm, looks like you've concluded I've been falsely accused of being a sock puppet of 76.87.47.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)--Krispy Kreme please. Boodlesthecat (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, reading, not your strong suit it appears. Note -- perhaps you missed the subtlety -- that I put "anonymous friend" within quotation marks. You even missed the plain English of my "I'm not buying you doughnuts". That's a George W. Bush-level of pretending not to hear things people tell you.

But even, for the sake of argument, assuming you're not a sockpuppet, it still means that you allied yourself with an obsessive, indefinitely banned, factually wrong self-promoter -- great company to keep, what? -- and now your support is gone. Note that the admins laughed at her claims and bounced her out of her toot suite. Something to keep in mind if you keep trying the same tactics. --Calton | Talk 14:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enough of your insulting drivel. A) I'm not their sock puppet, so an APOLOGY, not insults is in order, and B) I hadn't "allied" myself with anybody; I was trying to balance the hostile, disruptive and guideline flaunting edits of an editor with a serious grudge against the very subject he's editing that you have allied yourself with. An editor who lies about my edit history, makes paranoid accusations, distorts edit history discussions, insists that his POV trumps reliable sourcing (see Matt Gonzalez article), and deletes other editors talk page comments that throw him in an unfavorable light. I can "Diff" all of this. So if you're not going to give me an apology and my donut, then go away and come back when you learn how to play nicely. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You owe me an apology - Nope. You still, as I pointed out above, were carrying water from a banned troll. Talking about other people's behavior doesn't change that.

I hadn't "allied" myself with anybody - That would be factually incorrect, considering the exchanges of "me too!" with her when you were both forum-shopping.

An editor who lies about my edit history, makes paranoid accusations, distorts edit history discussions, insists that [her] POV trumps reliable sourcing ... and deletes other editors talk page comments that throw [her] in an unfavorable light. - fixed that for you. Oh, you weren't talking about J-M Spicuzza? I particularly liked her backwards causality, whereupon I supposed to have posted to WP:AN/I in revenge for something that hadn't yet happened.

OK, enough of your insulting drivel. - You first. As you sow, so shall ye reap, and the condescension that appears to be your default mode of interaction is insulting enough.

And what IS your bizarre fixation on doughnuts? Are you looking some form of external approval? Too cheap to buy your own? --Calton | Talk 22:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, you seem to suffer the same penchant for distortion as your now- busted buddy Griot. What I "mee too'ed" were the contentions that Griot was using sock puppets. Oh, and looky (below) I was right. And no, I wasn't talking about J-M Spicuzza, whoever that is. All I know was the anon IP who accused Griot correctly of sock puppetry and other unkind things. so again, apologize and/or donut, or begone. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Griot

You really need stronger evidence than "Because I said so," guy. --Calton | Talk 14:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, somebody isn't following their own ground rules. Tsk. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

confirmed

Griots #RR evading sock puppet has been confirmed here. Guess he was confused when he denied it here? It's not because I said so, its because checkuser said so. So why don't you go and abuse them instead of me, "guy?" Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little confusing to me how you figured all this stuff out but you should absolutely check the Chris Daly page and Gavin Newsom page. Also check my talk page for a ridiciulous situation I had with him. --BillyTFried (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the confusion

Hi Boodles. There seems to be some confusion or suspicion that you and I are actually the same user. If anybody should want to reach me to clarify that we are not the same person, I can be reached via email at Mary.Spicuzza@sfweekly.comMarynega (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, they confused. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI use of "controversy", "controversial"

This is just FYI as it might not exactly address the discussion at Talk:Ralph_Nader#Naders_.22very_controversial.22_campaigns, but I see that Wikipedia:WTA#Scandal.2C_controversy.2C_affair lists "scandal" as a deprecated term and suggests "controversial episode" or "controversy" instead -- apparently the sense of editors of this style guideline is that "controversy" and "controversial" should not be considered pejorative. Have a good one. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility, goading and personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks and civility policies. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users, and even if you feel an editor has taken an action or actions which you disagree with or believe are wrong, acting as you have on User talk:Griot is completely unacceptable. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Orderinchaos 06:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.139.36.105

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. AGK (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

Griot deliberately misrepresenting me on his talk page

Which is not allowed on Wikipedia talk pages, so all I did was revert it back to the original conversation. This can be seen here along with my comments on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&action=history

AGAIN

He has done it again, saying (this is my talk page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=prev&oldid=190710037<br\>

However Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for purposefully misrepresenting fellow editors in a bad light.<br\>

WP:Talk_page states that Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.<br\>

And I am certain they are also not meant to be used in the way Griot is using his. Please have him either remove all conversations between me and him from his talk page or leave the whole conversation exactly as it originally was. If you are not an Admin or cannot handle this for me can you please direct me to someone who can. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't have him do anything, I'm just another editor. I do chase mice rather well though. What you can do, if you feel there is abuse going on, is go to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and post there, in accordance with the instructions there. In the meantime, it's no doubt best to stay off that editor's talk page. Refer to the Talk Page guidelines both to assess whether this editor is abusing their talk page and as a guide for what you can and can't do on their talk page. Meow. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's what I did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Griot_deliberately_misrepresenting_me_on_his_talk_page<br\> Thanks for the advice! --BillyTFried (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You might find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=prev&oldid=190675197<br\> BillyTFried (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish Inquisition

Thanks for the rib tickler. Dlabtot (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodles, I agree with your edit here. Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to work "incrementally", perhaps too much so. WNDL42 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live long and prosper

Frackin' brilliant! I like the way you communicate BtC..:) While you're at it, I'd like a side of spam with my quantum mystical pseudoscientific bleepin' dead parrot, eh, squire? Dreadstar † 23:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your Heroically Humorous efforts to get the message across...! Keep up the good humor! Dreadstar † 23:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image:SpockVulcan.jpg

User:Griot

Likely by now you are aware that once again your suspicions have been confirmed and once again Griot has been indefinitely blocked. Whatever may come of this now, I'd just like to let you know that I appreciate your sleuthing and persistence. Not all disruption to Wikipedia takes the form of blatant vandalism, and we need people who are willing to doggedly pursue less obvious instances as well. As I mentioned when you first approached me on my talk page about this, I had (and still have) very little familiarity with sock puppetry and the pursuit thereof, but my observation of your experience suggests that it can be a challenging task. Thanks for being willing to take it on anyway. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too....WNDL42 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Griot, aren't you banned indefinitely? Found another sock in the drawer?

Say, isn't your own pet abusive sockpuppeteer banned, too? Seems to me Griot has a long way to go to match your friend in total number of socks squashed.

But let me guess: abuse in a good cause is always right: nice to see you've made clear that you've adopted Republican Party Values, then. --Calton | Talk 13:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bad grammar

I will continue to remove poor grammar and unencycopedic language. Ask for help if you can't figure out how to say something properly. Rracecarr (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout your wholesale revert without consensus of Rationalist's improvements to the lead?? Rracecarr (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about his wholesale rewrite without concensus? And what does that have to do with your rude behavior? Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with you complaining about removing material. Pots and kettles, and all that. Rracecarr (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seriously, man, you're making no sense, you are being rude, combative, uncivil, and flagrantly edit warring. Kindly desist. Boodlesthecat (talk)

"Challenges how" and "attributes to how" are not appropriate. A start would be changing "how" to "the way in which". Also, you are past 3RR, just to let you know. Rracecarr (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your a nit-picking simply for POV pushing purposes. End of discussion since you are not being honest. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am honest, and it is uncivil of you to assume bad faith. I don't particularly see the phrases as POV (although they do add clutter), just really bad writing. Rracecarr (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you are using "grammar" and rude assertions about "really bad writing" to delete sourced, factual content you don't like. It's all in the history, so please stop cluttering my talk page with your disingenous arguments. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boodlesthecat, I have had a terrible time with Rracecarr reverting, undoing and deleting my work at several different articles; most notable the foot-pound force article. I have for the last 9 months tried to communicate with Rracecarr in a civil manner. However Rracecarr's responses are off topic or non-sequitur's with sarcastic language (that puts it nicely). Rracecarr's posts read like this is some kind of competition. I find it weird. The edit warring that Rracecarr is engaged in borders on juvenile behavior. I would report his/her behavior to admin but one, I don't know how and two, that is an extreme measure. Do you have any suggetions for me? Thank you, Greg Glover (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

greg--as you can see above, I don't think I was very successful in my interactions with Rracecarr. I'm not sure what gets him going into that mode, but I also see on your talk page that there is within it all some productive discussion. Since you are discussing technical definitional issues, I think perhaps maybe you two can agree to hammer out specific differences, and agree on mutually acceptable definitions and expository wordings. The issues seem to be regarding technical matters, so you can both consult the proper published reference works for guidance where there are disagreements. If there are issues about popular usage, eg., torgue, that can be worked into the article ("in some contexts, torque can refer to...) just like the complex number article notes "In some disciplines (in particular, electrical engineering, where i is a symbol for current), the imaginary unit i is instead written as j, so complex numbers are sometimes written as a + jb" so that an engineer doesnt throw a fit and say :"no, it's written j!!" In any case, have a chat and see if you can agree to hammer out differences on talk pages (wheere others may have input too), consult authorities and then make agreed upon edits, rather than back and forth. Hope this is useful! Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Your examples are great. I think this will be very helpful.Greg Glover (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for WP:Civil violation

Boodles, comments [like this] really don't do anyone any favours. Please watch for civility, Jefffire (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped you would have taken this in a mature fashion. Consider this your warning for uncivil behavior. Anything else and you will be reported for disruption. Jefffire (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using threats of reporting as a cheap intimidation attempt....yawn Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do stop this behavior. Jefffire (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffire, You've threatened me similarly and it's getting old. The behavior Boodles is commenting on is far more disruptive, and any "civility" issues should be addressed at the root of the problem. The user Boodles is commenting on is way out of line, throwing up Smoke screens, and I personally find it to be disruptive. If Boodles "socratic irony" is what it takes, well that's unfortunate, but it's better than locking the article over and over again, which is what we had before. WNDL42 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Personal attacks, such as calling others Nazi's, is strongly discouraged and flat-out inappropriate despite the context. seicer | talk | contribs 00:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elias

Seriously, stop your bickering. It's getting tiring. Will ^(talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same shit, different day. Stop it. Will ^(talk) 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I can understand and somewhat relate to your feelings, but if you continue, you will be blocked, I'm sorry to say. Having an opinion about something doesn't get your blocked from here; attacking others about their opinions will. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me you are kidding. anti-Semitic rants and Jew-baiting of other editors is permitted on wikipedia?? Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, and that user may be facing a block too. But you need to calm down, please. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly calm and waiting for someone to address this users vicious anti-Semitism rather than attack me for bringing it to Wikipedia's attention. I bring it up and get told to "shut the hell up?" Is that how thing s work here?Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you are upset at his strange views regarding Jews and Judaism, but calling someone a Nazi is never acceptable. Nazis are something entirely different from bizarrely anti-Semitic contributors at Wikipedia and Stormfront. The best policy in a situation like this is to ignore anti-Semites, keep a watch on your articles to make sure they aren't dumped down the Looking Glass and report specific policy violations (like 3RR, etc.) when you see them. (And before you accuse me of having an agenda towards ignoring this sort of complaint, have a look at my userpage). Avruch^T 01:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; even though that editor is a member of a Nazi forum (Stormfront) I wont call a spade a spade and call him a Nazi. Fine. Now--is there no policy about filling talk pages with anti-Semitic rants? seems like a no-no per WP:talk. How come no one will address that, and that editors Jew baiting me, and only respond with the rather bizarre notion that I shoudlnt call a nazi a nazi? Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any Nazis at the moment, and hopefully there never will be again. Stormfront is a collection of losers who whine about how the world mistreats them, and blame it on targets conveniently picked out for them by history. Calling them Nazis either gives them far more credit (in their world) than they deserve, or demeans those who suffered and died at the hands of actual Nazis. There are methods for dealing with anti-Semitic hatred on talkpages. First, don't violate any policies yourself. Second, accumulate a body of evidence that includes the most egregious diffs. Once you have, post it in one go to AN/I or start an RfC. Avruch^T 02:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on ANI links to a page full of anti-semitic rants by this member of a collection of losers who whine about how the world mistreats them, and was told to "shut the hell up." Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem with that (not that I'm condoning shut the hell up, but perhaps Will knows more background than I do) is that when you make a report on AN/I, typically it is much more helpful to provide a list of diffs to violations so that it can be reviewed quickly without someone having to devote a great deal of time to filling themselves in or reading over a page filled with bullshit. If you want to assemble a list of diffs and repost later, or at AN instead of AN/I, you could do that. I'd recommend at least ten different diffs, with the most objectionable text displaying in the link in your report. Avruch^T 02:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No actually Will knew nothing of the background, but instead chose to give a perfect exampe of a violation of WP:DIK. A courteous response, by any editor or admin on my AN/I would be to simply and cordially request examples, which I would happily supply, rather than lambast me for complaining about being the target of an anti-Semitic loser. Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're talking!

Julian Barbour indeed! Have you checked out Jacob Bekenstein, John Archibald Wheeler and/or Holographic Principle? See especially the last. Bleep discussions get old...but remain important because new users come in, start identifying with the cult of "pathological disbelief" and (as innocent bystanders) get sucked in to this garbage. Very tiresome, but it's an unfortunately pervasive problem on Wikipedia. WNDL42 (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bekenstein is Wheeler's student and developed the Generalized Second Law... WNDL42 (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-semitic editor

Please report abuse to WP:ANI. Thanks, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the material is in the archive, you probably shouldn't revert the most recent removal. You can just point to the archive or to an earlier version of the talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi--See above; Ricky81682, who did the archiving in the midst of the Wikiquette filing, has instructed me to feel free to unarchive. archiving makes the links to the full relevant sections inoperable. I think we can wait until a resolution on this--it certainly seems like a bit of impropriety to archive precidely in the middle of an active dispute about the material. Per Ricky81682's post above, I am going to revert. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/i

I understand you may be angry but do you really think your current posts on AN/I are helping your case? In fact, you carry on this way and it's likely you'll get blocked too. You should either calm a bit or expect uninvolved users to take your comments with less weight. David D. (Talk) 06:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously ... your comments are getting to be over the top. You need to tone it down several notches and I would strongly suggest disengaging with the other user if/when he becomes unblocked and let others handle him. --B (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Jewish lobby talk

Boodles, I appreciate your acceptance and concerns about my posts to the talk page, and in thinking about how to reply decided that repeating your post, and my reply here, was appropriate. Active discussion seems to have slowed considerably over the week end.

Those excerpts illustrate some of the complexities of the era, with Jewish lobbying power beginning to flex its strength and taking head-on a political establishment that was indifferent to Jews at best and contained a not so subtle anti-Semitic current (as seen in those now famous Truman quotes). This all is in the context of the aftermath of the tragic and unconscionable failures of the New Deal regime to act on behalf of Jews in the Hitler era. Now the Lobby is flexing its muscle and coming head to head with Cold War realpolitic. The anti-Semitic undercurrent continued well into recent years, peaking of course with the Jew hater Nixon.

Please allow me a re-write of it, to illustrate how I believe it should fit into the article, and to some extent, how it fits my bias.

These excerpts illustrate the strength and some of the complexities of this critical pre-state era, with both Zionist and Jewish lobbying power beginning to exercise its strength by taking head-on a gentile political establishment that was indifferent to Jews as it should be (domestically) in a proportional democracy. This all is in the context of the aftermath and guilt of the tragic and unconscionable failures of the wartime and postwar administration to act on behalf of Jews in the Hitler era. [This should go in the article, as appropriately worded and re-worded, as the article is edited. The specific lobbying role of some Jews and Zionists to save European Jews during this period is also appropriate.]

That American society includes a not so subtle but limited anti-Semitic current, largely the result of other previous unrelated historical facts and misconceptions, is a fact. The anti-Semitic and newer New anti-Semitism and self hating Jew undercurrent continues to the present, peaking following the 1967 and 1973 wars, in the 1978 and 1982 Lebanon invasions, 1987 first intifada, 2000 second intifada, and the 2006 Lebanon invasion. Currently the lobby is flexing its muscle and coming head to head with post-Cold War realpolitic, where more (M&W) point out that this is not good for America. The Jew hater Nixon, I believe, can be shown to be another example of lobby power and domestic political expediency overruling his personal feelings and American interests. [How this is worked into the article, requires considerably more discussion, I believe.]

As seen in those now famous Truman quotes, there is legitimate moral concern that “The action of some of our United States Zionists [and now also, the post-77 Likud-dominated governments] will prejudice everyone against what they are trying to get done.”

This is certainly my bias. If you are concerned how I might use these, please see this dif [1] as to how I incorporated the first Lenczowski excerpt into an appropriate existing article. I do understand that different articles require different quotes; I hope it is acceptable. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours.

I have blocked you for 24 hours for harassment and disruption. Specifically, for continuing to insinuate that the admins and editors discussing this issue at AN/I are challenging you out of some latent or patent antisemitism, even after being asked, by multiple parties, to stop. The next block for this sort of behavior will be longer. Regards, Nandesuka (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boodlesthecat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

No comment on your reasons. At this point there's less than an hour left on the block. In general, {{unblock}} is meant for review of longer-term blocks. Mango juice^talk 15:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was blocked for harrassment and disruption

There is nothing indicating anyone being harrassed, per the descriptions given in WP:HAR
The claim of "disruption" is one-sided and removes the relevant history of how this became a dispute. I have caused no disruption--I have responded to them, as will be outlined
The origins of this dispute are in the complaints, since verified, of longstanding racist ranting and anti-Semitic personal attacks by EliasAlucard. That was the first disruption that I responded too, as this editor's rants were a constant disruption of the editing process and his dispicable rants were a flarant violation of WP:TALK
I filed a complaint at WP:ANI and was told to "shut the hell up" by an editor who then archived the case.
I filed a new complaint at WP:WQA here documenting the racist rants, and Jew baiting personal attacks by EliasAlucard. There I was falsely told by Ricky81682 that there was "consensus" on WQA to "let it go, even though all there was on WQA was the "shut the hell up" comment" and more rants by EliasAlucard. This complaint at least resulted in some recognition of the problem with this anti-Semite, and a warning to him. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When EliasAlucard continued his disruptive editing and racial/anti-Semitic taunting, including characterizing the Holocaust as the "Holohoax," I filed another WP:ANI documenting EliasAlucard's continued violations. ultimately this resulted in corroboration once again, and a 3 day block of the racist editor. However, in the course of what should havee beena simple case, given the glaring evidence against EliasAlucard, there were disruptions by other editors and harrassment of me in the course of that filing. Among other things I was
- "basically attacking him (EliasAlucard) non-stop for quite some time now" with no evidence presented of my "attacks" and in complete disregard of the endless racial taunting I had endured
- Told that my complaints against this vile racist "looks like a bit of a hit-job, designed to get him blocked for disagreeing" This "blaming the victim is where I questioned why it was that I was being charged with orchestrating a conspiracy ("hit job") against a clearly racist, anti-Semitic editor. Bringing up the latent anti-Semitic undertones in that accusation is not "harrassment--if anything, the contention that I was somehow conspiring against this editor is harrassment.
- Challenged about my complaint about the use of "Holohoax", when it was quite clear to anyone taking a moment to read that it was being used in a noxious manner by EliasAlucard (and which is now agreed)
- Told that I was somehow violating EliasAlucard's "free speech", when {WP:TALK]]'s first, bold faced advice is Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. I questioned if somehow anti-Semitic rants were an exception to this rule, since I was being told I was somehow impinging upon the anti-Semtic editor's rights and free speech. I still question that.
- was told by user Will AGAIN to "shut the hell up: Can you read, Boodles? This is getting ridiculous. I told you in no uncertain terms to shut up and take the dispute off the wiki about 30 hours ago Bizarre complaint about forum shopping, since his first obnoxious rejection is what made it necessary. Will has yet to receive any serious actions against him for his nasty personal attacks and flagrant msiuse of WP:ANI, just some pointless wrist slapping.
- Was told by Veritas that I "dragged most of AN/I into your personal feud" as if I am somehow responsible for what they posted, and as if my response to anti-Semitic attacks was "my personal" issue, rather than one that should concern the Wiki community. All they needed to do, if they wished, was to review the evidence and comment. Instead, some felt the need to attack and attempt to discredit me, if not outright defend a vile anti-Semite and racist.

On the basis of the above, and more, I request an unblock. I will be happy to tone down my commentary; I do, however, feel that it would be fair if there was at least an acknowledgment of the (at the miniumum) equal amount of "disruption and harrassment" I have been subjected to. Cheers Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support an unblock based on the unproductive comments from Will. Given that kind of provocation it would be hard for anyone to remain calm. This would be subject to this being a lesson to proceed with such complaints in a rationale and productive way despite users like Will. When uninvolved users ask questions for clarification assume things might not be clear. A measured calm debate will also be more successful than getting frustrated. David D. (Talk) 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to proceed rationally and productively (although such things as accusations of orchestrating a "hit job" against an anti Semite seemed a bit beyond a request for clarification!). Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That user did apologise for that comment when you brought it up. Things don't always have to go from bad to worse. I asked Nandesuka to consider unblocking you. David D. (Talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need some clarification

Can someone perhaps help clarify what this comment and this not very clarifying clarification might possibly mean, since I cannot currently inquire directly? I certainly don;t want to make any assumptions, and would definitely like some second opinions/interpretations. Thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any clues? Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, WebHamster did clarify what he meant, which is, judging from the he supplied as explanation is that I am impersonating the perfect whiny neurotic jew. So upon expiration of my block that came as a result of protesting anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia, I will be filing a complaint against WebHamster first thing for his nasty little anti-Semitic slur against me. I am really baffled as to what goes through the minds of some editors here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion, in case you care

While it may be that I have missed some particularly inflammatory post you made, I consider your block well out of bounds. The nearest practical effect I could see it having would be to discourage users from reporting bias, and further discourage users from criticising admin comments. This block is just depressing. That's all I can think to say. IronDuke 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, IronDuke I share your concerns about discouraging users. I don't know if I posted anything inflammatory, but I certainly did get visibly pissed about having to be subjected to a barrage of anti-Semitism, and then to get criticized and even attacked ("shut the hell up!") for reporting it. In any case, it won't be discouraging me--as I noted above, first thing on TO DO list after the block is over is to report the nasty, gratuitous anti-Semitic attack by WebHamster above. Hey who knows--maybe someone will even do it on my behalf in the interim. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting the user in the first place. I'm wondering if an RfC might be the way to go. But after seeing some of the truly disheartening stuff on AN/I, I'm having second thoughts. IronDuke 00:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting experiment...

How long will WebHamster be allowed to continue his vicious anti-Semitic tirade against me (as he is doing right now) before someone threatens to block him, blocks him, or tells him (as i was told for protesting anti-Semitism) "shut the hell up?" Boodlesthecat (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check

Since you're so fond of links, here's one for you: You've been treating Wikipedia as if were your personal Fight Club to carry on your off-wiki political warfare, enforce your own specific politics, and to harass anyone you perceive as an "enemy" -- the last even to the point of condoning and aiding a long-banned and abusive sockpuppeteer so you can proclaim your own fight against a sockpuppeteer, one who seems to have been driven to it, in part, by your abusive behavior. "Hypocrisy" may not be strong enough a word for it.

As for your paranoid and authoritarian "warning" on my page: 1) I read and comment on WP:AN/I and WP:AN all the time -- the last time I checked, I had 505 edits to WP:AN/I and 299 to WP:AN -- so the part about "following" is pure nonsense. In fact, given that you've gone and commented about comments left by others on my Talk Page, I'd say any "following" is going on in a different direction. 2) Having you reach for WP:NPA -- that handy, all-purpose shield against criticism -- in the SAME posting as "your personal, irrational, and childish grudge"[2] shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the policy you're claiming to cite. 3) You're in no position -- legal, assigned, managerial, ethical, or even moral -- to be giving out warnings -- first or final -- on other users's behavior. None. Going by the block above, perhaps the opposite.

Given all the contradictions between your strident claims and your actual behavior, I'd say that this page might be helpful reading for you. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be fair, Calton, you have until my block is over to provide evidence of my

"condoning and aiding a long-banned and abusive sockpuppeteer"
"using wiki to carry on my off-wiki political warfare"
How a serial sock puppeteer whose began his puppet career over a year before I ever edited opposite him "was driven to it, in part, by my abusive behavior."

as well as apologize for that convoluted and largely incomprehensible rant you just spewed above, or you will be #2 on the complaint list after WebHamster. I'm starting to feel like a freak magnet. Boodlesthecat (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if your edit summaries are like, "Is every freak [...]," then yes. seicer | talk | contribs 00:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit." Didn't know they had prognostic properties as well! Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and the best part is....

i'm still blocked for being such a mean mean meanie to this lovable fella. Hehe hehe, zat's a hoot! Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

boodlesthecat, I think you realise you have support, but don't push it with this new section. Just be glad you won the day with minimal damage. David D. (Talk) 01:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, guess i got a little bored stuck in my cage while all the other kids get to play :). Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, may be you could read a book? There is life outside the computer :) Besides it's not that long to wait. David D. (Talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no can't read a book--they don't like us doing that at work :) Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tawana Brawley

I see what you mean. I'm not going to be around much for the next few days, but I'll help out when I have some time.

In the meantime, you might get some support at WP:BLP/N. The editors there have stepped into a couple of edit wars over BLPs and cut out WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and other slanted material. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help and glad you thought I did help. I need to take another look at the article, too. It's understandable that some material would be hard to find - it may be better to look for the topic in books or journals, as I'm sure the case has been reviewed, both near the time and later, for what it seemed to represent about race issues - which also changed over time with the investigation and conclusions of the grand jury, etc.--Parkwells (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

48 hour block.

I have blocked you for 48 hours for this edit, in the context of your being repeatedly warned -- and blocked -- for insinuating antisemitic motives to other editors simply because they disagree with you. Your comments are a slur on Cla68. If you immediately apologize to him, I will consider unblocking you.

If you instead decide to continue a campaign of incivility on this talk page, I will protect it. Your behavior is unacceptable. You will moderate it. Nandesuka (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endure days of attacks, abuse, nastiness and incivility and an anti-Semitic personal attack (all because I had the audacity to bring to the attention of this community a vile disruptive anti-Semite) which gets ignored, yet when I respond to someone who is accusing me of "baiting" this vile racist, I get blocked--again! This double standard is ridiculous--I have endured reams of attacks, countless (as you call them speculative "insinuating" about my "motives" on every noticeboard discussing this racist that I--and none of you--dealt with. All for what? Sanctions, blocks, anti-Semitic innuendo? Sorry, Nandesuka, I'll take the 48 hours. I can't in good conscience accept your offer. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boodlesthecat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

egregious double standard--see below

Decline reason:

Declined. Other editor's behaviour does not excuse your own. Your inability to refrain from defining those who disagree with you as anti-Semetic is completely tendentious. — Black Kite 11:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have endured days of insinuations, abuse, personal attacks, incivilities, accusations, as if I'm some sort of punching bag on boards all over Wikipedia discussing the case of the racist holocaust denier Elias Alucard (who I brought to the attention of the community). Yet my every syllable is microscrutinized, with admins lining up waiting to pounce within seconds and throw blocks my way--especially Nandesuka, who this time acted within 45 seconds. This is an absurd witchhunt--all because I exposed an actual disruptive, vile character (who a disturbing number of editors are actually defending.) This is Kafkaesque. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bad behavior does not excuse anyone else's bad behavior. No one else's bad behavior excuses yours. We are all, in the end, responsible for our own choices. I am sorry that you had to endure suffering at the hands of Elias or other editors. That makes it all the sadder that you see fit to inflict similar indignities on others. I hope you change your mind about not apologizing, but in the end the choice is yours. Nandesuka (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Nandesuka, obviously the choice is yours. Like Cla68 (who actully owes me an apology) you ascribe to me some magical mind control powers that force people to act as they do. Just take responsibility for your own actions thank you, and I for mine--but please don;t insult me by insinuating that i am forcing you to stalk my every syllable and pounce within seconds. And your insinuation that my actions ("indignities") are anywhere comparable to a vicious, Jew hating, racist is beyond insulting. I'd like an apology for that. It's smacks of Alucard's "Jews are the real Nazis" slander. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are unable to resist insinuating antisemitic motives to yet another editor -- this time, me -- I am protecting your talk page for the duration of your block. Normally I would revert egregious abuse such as your last message, but in this particular case I want any reviewing admins to understand why I felt this step was necessary. Nandesuka (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tawana Brawley

In case you wouldn't see my response above:: Glad to help and glad you thought I did help. I need to take another look at the article, too. It's understandable that some material would be hard to find - it may be better to look for coverage of the topic in books or journals, as I'm sure the case has been reviewed, both near the time and later, for what it seemed to represent about race issues - opinions of which also changed over time with the investigation and conclusions of the grand jury, etc.--Parkwells (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bleep

Well Boodles .... thanks for your input on the Bleep article . I also am wondering why I continue to try and make things work over there. Thanks for you great sense of humour and steady awareness of policy.I've tried everything to bring some kind of focus so that we can at least move on but today all I got was insulted so have to think seriously about continuing. Anyway love your sense of humour, and a picture is worth ....(olive (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry to see that you are leaving Bleep . We really need as many people as possible who know and understand policy over there. I'm not sure how the article can ever progress. Anyway your light was big and I'm sorry it will be "out" on Bleep.(olive (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think there is an explanation in this new study on about wikipedia, note the relative lack of coverage on WP in literature vs. geeky stuff. I think Wikipedians' behavior is a general reflection on the aesthetic sensibilities of it's dominant editor mindset. Boodles, you are a brilliant humorist and always on the mark, please drop by Bleep once in awhile and don't let the scientistic's get to you... WNDL42 (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, I looked at the figures (especially figure 3) in that article and it didn't seem to show a relative lack of coverage on WP in literature vs. geeky stuff. How did you come to this conclusion? David D. (Talk) 06:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I was looking at Fig. 1, page 432 of the Journal (which is pdf page 4), specifically at x-axis categories "B", "L", and (especially) "P" (literature), on which topic Wikipedia reflects less that half of what the outside world in general reflects. Thanks for asking...is there a talk page somewhere where we can discuss further? WNDL42 (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look here. I don't know if it's discussion about the articles themselves, or about listing the articles. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw figure one but was not sure how to interpret that. The problem is that literature is inherently about publishing books. So it should be no surprise that the number of literature articles is down compared to the real world number of books. History is way up, is that more geeky or more like literature?

I the active number of edits per page, which was similar, seems to be a more accurate reflection of tha activity on wikipedia, or vandalism :) Especially given there are roughly the same number of literature 10% vs science 13% articles in the set they studied. David D. (Talk) 16:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you present a valid alternative hypothesis. I for one am working now on a different topic, and I could use some help. David, Olive and (especially) Boodles, can you look at a new article I just created on "Lzip". It's critically important that this article be in shape for nomination as a "feature article" on or before the first of next month. I hope you will join me in this monumentally important event in the ongoing evolution and refinement of Wiki-culture. WNDL42 (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

Can you come back to here if you have the time or interest please. I need to get some more views on what I think continues to be a complex case of conflict of interest by this editor - and whether this should just got to the Wikipedia Foundation now rather than us trying to deliberate it further. Thank you.--VS ^talk 10:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Calton has been harassing you, along with a number of other users. I would like to file a joint complaint with the arbitration committee against him, as he is clearly abusing other users and repeatedly violating the rule against personal attacks. Please join me in this important effort to help clean up wikipedia. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how the system works, or rather, how it doesn't work; what I'm suggesting is that we file a joint-complaint, with both of our names on it, and perhaps the names of some other people we can find since Calton seems to have been harassing quite a few people. It'll be harder for them to simply ignore a request with multiple complaintants. I also suggest you join the review which is a good [censored] forum for discussion of Wikipedia's inherent flaws. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

I noticed that your user page has been vandalized and blanked; with your permission, I would like to revert it to your previous edit, as you do not deserve to be victimized by such unwarranted censorship. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

I'm amazed at how 'special' some of these darling little admins are; its like they have nothing better to do with their life than try to decide whether putting booooooooooooooodles on your user page is appropriate or not. I suggested to Calton that he might be more productive if he started a collection of lint. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Allegation of Duke being a Neo-Nazi

Duke once wore a Nazi suit when he was a teenager and has never been part of a Neo-Nazi organization. That hardly warrants mentioning him in the opening paragraph as if he were a major proponent of the ideology. Also, he has renounced Nazism several times, including in his book -My awakening- and has compared Israel to Nazi Germany when he has strong feelings of antipathy for Israel which suggests antipathy for Nazi Germany as well. --Spitzer19 (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it the page you mentioned appears to be a case of sockputtetry and as such a breach of 3RR. It appears a bit to coincidental that the users and IPs spring up with very smiilar edit summaries as well. I've made a comment similar to this on Will Beback's page. BigHairRef | Talk 04:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you await the result of the checkuser, whilst I don't have a problem with being on your side as far as 3RR is concerned, given that I don't have access to the textbook cited I'd be hesitant to include it per WP:BIO, at least for now. Taking neither side I'd let the IP have this one for now as I'd be unwilling to continue to revert based on vandalism as it's possible he may have a point, even if he's going about it wrongly. BigHairRef | Talk 04:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the talk page but as I said it's a personal thing (for me), unless you've got some particularly compelling reason for nailing Duke to the wall (not that he needs any more anyway) I'd wait untill it's shown the IP is a sock. BigHairRef | Talk 05:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the various puupes with my suspicions. If you want to include it in the checkuser or anything else that should be fine. I'm not going to keep an eye on the page tiself (Neo-Nazism) but I will be watching the various talk and user pages. BigHairRef | Talk 05:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm your man for the last message you left me, I'm not an admin so I cant do anything about it, I'd suggest that wither using RfC or Mediation (personally for now I'd suggest the former) is now the best bet. AS s I said before I'm not going to keep an eye on the page itself, enough people already seem to be doing that, I will be watching various editors but no more. BigHairRef | Talk 21:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours

For edit warring on on New Force (Italy), you have been blocked for a period of 24 hours. After the block expires, please attempt discussion before reverting. Any further reverts after the block will result in additional blocks of increasing duration. - auburnpilot talk 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed how this user's edits constituted malicious POV pushing and false claims in detail here, and I ceased reverting and asked the offending editor and likely sock puppeteer to revert himself. Dont worry, I wont bother reverting if blocking admins can't take the time to review a situation and simply throw blocks around at people trying to keep POV pushing sock puppeteers and vandals from disrupting articles. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are very specific exceptions to the three revert rule, all of which can be found within Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions. Maintaining an article's neutral point of view is not one of those exceptions, as that is entirely related to content (one person's view of neutral is another person's political bias). While reverting a banned editor or a user evading a block is an exception, not a single one of the editors who you claim to be socks of the editor who you were reverting, have ever been blocked. In other words, your edits do not fall within the exceptions of the rule, and constitute edit warring regardless of the time frame. So before accusing people of placing blocks without reviewing a situation, assume some good faith, as I assure you I don't place blocks on a whim. - auburnpilot talk 00:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The three revert rule always applies unless you are one of the people who gets to apply "ignore all rules". At that point, you can denounce "wikilawyering" and just ban anyone you want while endlessly reverting them. Sorry you didn't get the memo on that. Sometimes, in fact, you can get banned for violating the three-revert rule when it wasn't actually a revert; life is curious like that when you live in a [censored] society. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Al Sharpton

Good catch. I missed that one. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CAMERA complaint at WP:COIN needs more specifics

Hello Boodlesthecat. I have been looking at the complaint about Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America that you filed at WP:COIN. Since I saw that this concerned the Middle East (a notorious venue of trouble and disputes that are impossible to resolve) I have been dreading having to analyze this one seriously. However, if there is going to be a serious discussion at COIN, probably you should try to add some diffs about the promotional edits. Otherwise people will just go ahead and regard this a 'political' issue about which nothing can be done. We need very specific evidence of violations if we expect to get admins to take it seriously. One option is to designate a specific set of COI-affected editors who we request not to touch the CAMERA article. That would certainly take a lot of evidence, since it most cases we don't have proof of COI, we just have the record of past edits that may be considered promotional in nature. Someone has to go and dig up those edits, if you expect the COIN report to get any traction with administrators. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CAMERA COI was dealt with efficiently, and the rest of it was swept to archive

Boodles, I went to the trouble to write some thing at AN/I, but when I went back to check something, it was gone. Here is my post that will never get there (not yet fully ref'd/checked).

Whoa, hold it, get rid of the personal information. Deal with the ‘conflict of interest’ stuff where and how it is supposed to be dealt with. There are serious and provable issues here. To my mind, the guy has shot himself in the foot, out’d himself and further disgraced the organization in the process. I am an involved editor; independently I had noted some ‘socky’ things happening between Gni and the ‘68’ anon address. Had I seen CAMERA in the ‘Who-is’ that I checked (but didn’t do a page down), I would have been here sooner on my own; sorry I am late. My POV is different from Boodle’s, but our views of NPOV are similar.

Gni has unmitigated gall to be the first post here (except for the personal-info thing). He has committed serious Wiki-no-no for considerable time and over a broad range of subjects for one single purpose. Not all of his edits are invalid (that will take a very long time to check), but he should be censured/sanctioned/banned, whatever the wiki-word is. His most disingenuous comment however is, “And it should be clear to neutral observers, based on my edit history, that it is hardly my sole or primary purpose to promote a person, company, product, service or organization.”

Zealot, hypocrite and unsuitable POV-editor are the closest, most descriptive, yet civil, words that I can come up with. Yet, I can define Gni’s ‘single person, company, product, service or organization’ all in a single, hyphenated word. It is, in fact[] the specific word that he keeps trying to expunge from Wikipedia. The word is “pro-Israel”, and I will let CAMERA speak for itself, [3], because, frankly, it has nearly been impossible to NPOV it here.

Welcome to the Middle East, people. If editors here can not see the broader implications of the continuing POV’d offensive on the core values of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, then we are well past being characterized as ‘three blind men and an elephant.’ This is a specific case where Wikipedia could take a big step toward leveling the NPOV playing field concerning the I-P conflict. When incidents like this arise, especially at AN/I or similar lofty heights, I look to administrative editors to make honest, fair, but bold decisions to put a stop to it. Unfortunately and frankly, what I too often see is the ass-end of an ostrich, with its head in the NPOV sand. It must be a 'forest for the trees' kind of thing. Respectfully,

That he was able to start and finish that case's life on the page without one colon in his last post, seems very well designed, quite unfathomable, almost unbelievable. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAMERA

I know you haven't violated any policies and did the right thing bringing the issue to COIN. But this Gni fellow seems to have identified you as his enemy in this matter. Granted he hasn't been forthcoming in the matter, but I figure I'll give him some rope and see what he does with it. We all know precisly what an RFCU will come back as, and rather than it be a you v. him situation, I'd like to move it to several people (me, Ed, some Jewish-expert editors, and you) all upholding our principles and trying to show him its not a random feline (pardon pun, couldn't resist) who wants him to alter his style, but rather that the entire project insists on it. MBisanz ^talk 06:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, just to predict how things will proceed. Tomorrow several Anon. IPs will begin editing the article to push the CAMERA POV. If you could come to me or Ed, I know I'll revert and protect the page for some time. Possibly the edits will be centered geographically enough that a CU can be brought in. We all know what we'll see, and I'll have to use the buttons. MBisanz ^talk 06:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though Gni's identity has been fairly confirmed in a COIN report, more probably isn't needed. Nonetheless, here he said he would look for founding CAMERA documents and then five days later they were posted on the CAMERA site. It becomes hard to believe that someone who has sockpuppted around a 3RR ban from the CAMERA office for edits on the CAMERA article would claim to know nothing about e-mails from the group. It is also worth noting the timing of the events. --68.72.34.126 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask for your help...

With this and this? BillyTFried (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks it also seems I will have more ridiculous behavior to deal with from our plebian-hating friend Calton with him trying to remove the quite notable fact that Nader has called for impeachment from Nader's article. BillyTFried (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did. That's why I wrote that Nader's the only current candidate who did. BillyTFried (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right. I'll just leave it for now and see how things develop. BillyTFried (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the United States

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Racism in the United States. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Uncle Milty (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only editor who seems to have a problem with the "poorly sourced" contributions. Perhaps there needs to be more of a consensus among editors on this opinion. Uncle Milty (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 things: It doesn't appear to be "poorly sourced," and you have also developed a pattern of deleting content that doesn't coincide with your point of view. Please review Neutral point of view. Uncle Milty (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with any of those references. The one you seem to dislike the most (Loompanics) includes 26 references of its own in that article. It's your opinion that these are "weak sources." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle Milty (talk • contribs) 02:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wanna go in halves on this stub?

J Street
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7349371.stm BillyTFried (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Guess it's not a stub anymore! Ya snooze, ya lose I guess! :-P BillyTFried (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of review

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign for the conclusions of an administrative review concerning the recent controversy over a mailing list run by CAMERA, in which your editing was discussed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

After reading Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Statement_re_Wikilobby_campaign I'm sorry I suggested going easy on Gni last month at COIN. You were 100% right and a block for him was the right answer then, and now. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A World Without Jews

All I want to do is give this name in the lead paragraph, indicating that that's the name under which Marx's writing(s) were popularly know in the United States or English-speaking world. I am not making any claim as to their scholarly value. This is the only book form of the text. It must be the cause of the view during the on and after 1959 that Marx was an antisemite. Now you found what appears to be an obscure 1958 imprint, with no showing of the exact title, .... You can complete the list of identification deficiencies. I certainly would want to examine this book (for my personal scholarly evaluation). I thank you for this great find. However, not that it goes against your position, I'm sure you know what I mean.

By Karl Marx, Helen Lederer

Published 1958

Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion

Jews

84 pages

Cheers! And thanx. Ludvikus (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see the article talk page. The "A World Without Jews" was and is obscure, and it is not "the cause of the view during the on and after 1959 that Marx was an antisemite" as you claim. It was an obscure claim by one author that attempted to make that claim, partly by giving a false title to Marx' article. As I pointed out on the talk page, this was not the first time the claim that Marx was an antisemite was made. Cheers, Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish question

I figured out what you meant. Please look more carefully at what I'm doing. I think you were recless at best at removing my Distinctions & probably did not check everything out. Please look before you leap. Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to minimize the confusion you are creating. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jewish question (disambiguation)

You probably are unaware of the discussion currently going on at the above. Feel free to express your views there anyway you wish. But I think your probably unaware, fully, of what's going on. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish disabilities

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has not Disambiguate this term. But it has a scholarly, non-pejorative, usage, which just means all the legal restrictions which Jews inherited from the middle ages. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's an extremely archaic usage which I doubt has ever been used in the last 150 years. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely wrong!: Disabilities (disambiguation). --Ludvikus (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you just added that disamb 5 minutes ago--that's hardly proof of anything. Do you have any sources where the term is used in modern times? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pick up Any scholarly book on Jewish history (written by a scholar, & someone who knows how to write in English, not someone who uses "goy"). Read up on any good work on Jewish emancipation - Any! This is the Technical/Legal word for the idea. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look here:

18 Brumaire

You got me on that one, I think. I didn't realize it was a "historical even" Article. But that's Wikipedia's fault for not Disambiguation. It's still an ugly title, though: 18 Brumaire. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read articles before you edit them. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eighteenth Brumaire (disambiguatuion)

Just created this! Will you help me out on it? Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you going to help me out with the DAB??? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lederer, Helen

Here's the online library card catalog listing of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion

Record 1 of 1

You searched Class 01 - Title: On the Jewish Question

AUTHOR Marx, Karl, 1818-1883.

TITLE On the Jewish question / Karl Marx ; translated by Helen Lederer.

PUBLICATION Cincinnati, OH : Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1958.

DESCRIPTION 42 leaves ; 28 cm.

SERIES Readings in modern Jewish history

NOTE Cover ti.

NOTE On rectos only.

SUBJECT Jews - - Legal status, laws, etc.

SUBJECT Judaism.

SUBJECT Jews - - Politics and government.

SUBJECT Jews - - Germany - - History - - 1800-1933.

SUBJECT Germany - - Ethnic relations.

ADDTL AUTHOR Lederer, Helen.

--Ludvikus (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation Revisionism

Why don't you want the page DAB ed? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one are you talking about. I can't keep track of all your reckless and disruptive editing. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be nice. I respect you. It is WP policy.
Also, it's useless - you are too general about exactly, specifically, what you are complaining about.
You seem not to know what WP:Disambiguation is. Please learn it. I simply now want all these pages WP:DABed. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you "want" something, discuss it on the appropriate talk pages. And actually, you are not respectful. You are quite rude, and you often have no idea what you are doing. If you continue creating confusion on multiple pages, I will bring it to the admin board. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Reverting anything - so there's no Edit War. As I told you, I want to go by consenus! You think it's obscure - I don't. What's your problem? How many editors agree with you right now - tell me that, will you? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Ludvikus! Boodles is claiming Jap sex slavery is some undeniable historical fact, but there are plenty of cultural POV assumptions in his argument. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use racist expressions like "Jap" on my talk page. In fact, in general, don't come to my talk page to post bullshit. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as the article Jap clearly indicates, Jap is not a racist expression outside the US and Canada. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have written 0 words on Wikipedia about Japanese sex slavery and war crimes, the request still stands--please don't post bullshit on my talk page. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some news--Wikipedia is not a battle-ground. It is not a forum for personality clashes. Please respect NPOV. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

Would it be better if we talked here a bit? (I do remember your call for "Mercy" on my behalf - that was nice of you.) --Ludvikus (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the five books.

That was very productive. But you got me into trouble when you wrote that I should write to the publisher. I picked up on that and said I would write to the Library of Congress inquiring about that Subject classification. And Mr. Shabazz picked up on that. So please don't be sarcastic with me - it can be counter-productive. You are a reasonable person with whom I can have a conversation. But that other person just generalizes and provokes. What I would like to ask you is if you can find in books the earliest usage of the phrase Revisionist Zionism. Thanks for your consideration. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you spend the time doing research yourself instead of proposing changes before you have information. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I do have information. None of the older scholars use the term Revisionist Zionism. And it's a Discussion page on improving the article.
How do you feel if I started a List on different authors use of the word Revision in relation to Zionism and Israel? Would you support my effort? Or would you move for Delete? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely not support you, or any of you continually disruptive efforts. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ghetto benches. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Poeticbent talk 18:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respond to the issues on the talk page, rather than carrying on a POV pushing edit war. thanks. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manners

Please remove the "onanistic spree" comment. Truth isn't always helpful in these situations. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hello, you are aware that if you want to file a user conduct RfC, you first need to actually write up the page for it, right? That would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ludvikus. There used to be a page there, but it was a very old and apparently aborted attempt at an RfC that was apparently never filled out and filed properly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please re-word your summary in the listing page in a more neutral way. Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please!

While I'll readily agree that User:Ludvikus has been problematic, please remain civil. Your tone here is clearly impolite and may only get you in trouble. To answer your question, Ludvikus probably means edits such as this one. I agree with you that the revert was warranted, but posting those lines in the first place wasn't nice, either. Huon (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop engaging this user. It's only exacerbating things unnecessarily. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is best left to admins. Nothing is really going to get him to change, but allow him to do himself in all on his own. Baiting him with threats, real or not, is not helpful, and can be seen as equally uncivil. Remember that we do actually want everyone to contribute, especially if we disagree with their opinions/views. This provides a greater opportunity for an overall neutral point of view. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would strongly suggest that you defer to administrators (especially those involved), and report to them the user's uncivil actions instead of responding in kind, or chastising him for it. Remain as dispassionate and neutral as possible regarding content-related discussions. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to User:Ludvikus I suggest that you refrain from editing his/her talk page until such time as his/her editing status changes. If you have concerns about sockpuppets etc then either notify WP:ANI, or let one of the administrators who have recently commented on the Ludvikus's talk page know about you concerns. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Because as Poeticbent wrote earlier, it is hardly neutral. Please respect NPOV Alden or talk with Alden 21:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this quote from a book isn't neutral, so I deleted your editions. And please about don't revert my edition. Alden or talk with Alden 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

You have started a harassment campaign against Greg, hiding behind BLP (even though it was not violated), and than you started to disrupt the Fear article, now including a 3RR violation. If you continue such a disruptive behavior, as I told you earlier, it is you who will find yourself in trouble.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really necessary? Such things won't help us get towards a resolution to this matter. And I'm troubled by your comment that there was no BLP violation. As an administrator, you are charged with (among other things) enforcing BLP, and for an editor to accuse a living person of "masquerading as a son of Holocaust survivor" is a pretty blatant violation of that policy. For you to not only ignore that comment, but restore it and threaten another user who deleted it is puzzling. Gamaliel (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

3RR on Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, per a complaint at WP:AN/3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1. There is no 3RR violation--these are different edits to entirely different sections of the article, not the reversion of the same material. I have avoided reverting violating 3RR on any section of the article, despite the obvious attempts by a team of editors to provoke a 3RR violation. And as the history shows, while editors were showing up out of nowhere to join the gang blind reverting provocations, I was urging discussion on the talk page. 2. The editor who brought the complaint is an admin who is heavily involved in a content dispute on that article, who has made questionable use of admin authority to issue bullying thrats and to restore clearly problematic BLP material. see here for the ongoing discussion and the article talk page here 3. The admin bringing the 3RR complaint has been reverting clearly reliably sourced material (representaitve quote from a book in an article ABOUT that book) while pushing poorly sourced, negative material about the book. See the article history and talk page for this admin's involvement in this article. 4. refer to the article's recent history and the talk page, for examples of the hostilities and threats I've encountered trying to address basic POV and BLP issues in the article, eg [here].}}

I haven't looked very deeply into this, but from the 3RR report, only two of the four cited diffs contain the same content. The other two are totally unrelated. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point entirely. This isnt even close to 3RR. thanks for weighing in. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a WP:3RR violation, but the block log states "Edit warring: Per a complaint at the 3RR noticeboard", which appears to be true. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above it says the block is for violating 3RR. The "edit warring" was orchestrated by the heavily involved admin (Piotrus) who filed the inadequate 3RR case in the first place--check the article edit history, including 2 reverts by a compadre of his (Alden Jones) who never edited the article before and magically arrived to support his POV. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well, you can still get blocked simply for edit warring, even under 3 reverts. If you haven't directly violated the 3RR, make an honest effort to discuss more than revert, you'll make a better impression for the reviewing admin. I've gotten pretty swept up in these kinds of things myself in the past, and have also gotten blocked for edit warring. It's understandable that it happens, but for you to be unblocked you'll need to reasonably convince the reviewing admin that you can learn from this and improve how you handled the situation. Even if you're completely right about what you're editing in the article, they don't look very fondly on any kind of edit warring. Like I said, I know first hand how frustrating these kinds of things are, but you're more likely to win the debate in the long run when you're able to make a strong argument on the talk page and get support there before making the edit. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page, including my RfC, and the links I supplied above contacting other admins about this problem demonstrate my efforts to involve others in resolving this. However, a team of edit warriors working in concert managed to pull this off. I received no warning about edit warring; just a bogus warning above about my supposed "harassment" of the most egregious protagonist (a warning and a 3RR case issued by an admin heavily involved in the context dispute--a no-no for admins. as for the edit in question--it was realiable sourced info (which there is a developing consensus in agreement about) that was deleted by these edit warriors, without a valid explanation. They reverted ME. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in context, I think the block was excessive. There has been a good deal of improper behavior there and on its talk page from various parties, and I do not get the impression they are being treated equally. I've asked the blocking admin for a reconsideration of this block, and might be willing to unblock tomorrow myself. DGG (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it myself. This is not a good block. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Time served.

Request handled by: jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey boodles, sorry to see you were blocked. Glad to see it's resolved now - just as I was posting this, edit conflict. I hope you notice that there are no fewer than three editors, myself, DGG and Gamaliel defending the usage of such quotes. Some unasked for advice - just try to be a bit more patient - once it was up on BLP, lots of sensible people took an interest, and there was a lot less to worry about for reasonable contributions getting removed because of past problems, so even the tiniest appearance of edit warring is unnecessary and counterproductive. Perhaps there may be a language problem. Some of the arguments don't make sense to me. I'm not sure people are reading the article right, there are several ungrammatical and incomprehensible sentences in it too. Cheers,John Z (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[4] made on May 21 2008 to Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 96 hours. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boodlesthecat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The edit history clearly shows an orchestrated edit war being conducted, with no action taken against one side, while I have been blocked twice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, who is deeply involved in this dispute, has been misusing admin powers in a dispute he is involved in by filing two 3RR's against me, while ignoring the violations (including 3RR) of those who support him. His 3RR complaints are faulty as well, pretty much randomly listing any edit I make to the article as part of an RR series. I request this block be lifted AND that admins give attention to the concerted gang edit warring that Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus is leading

Decline reason:

This request does not contain any reason why your block violates our blocking policy and should therefore be lifted. Misconduct by Piotrus, if any, is not such a reason, because he did not block you. Misconduct by other users, if any, is similarly not a reason to unblock you. — Sandstein 22:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Fine. You have been notified about the bullying gang thuggery of this admin. Deal with it if you want. I am not going to waste time being battered by a gang of cyber thugs who have hijacked a string of article that they claim ownership of, and who use outright lying and Jew baiting attacks to intimidate other editors with. It's really not worth my time. Have fun with it. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodlesthecat, you need to slow down a little. There were occasions today I would have reverted edits, but you reverted them before I (or anyone else who might have been so inclined) had time to act. You would not now be blocked if you gave other editors time to get involved. Savlanoot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boodlesthecat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No 3RR warning was given. For my part, while a gang of editors were blindly reverting and deleting material they didnt like, I had filed 2 RfC's and have actively been trying to enourage talk page discussion of their edits, asking repeatedly for justifications for their reversions and deletions per Wiki guidelines and policies, commenting on their talk pages but have largely been met with stonewalling and abuse by these editors, while Piotrus continues to misuse his admin authority by unblocking the page, even though he is the main instigator of the edit warring and reversions.

Decline reason:

I'm not sure you need a warning at this point. You are certainly aware of the existence of that policy. Furthermore, though you have been pursuing dispute resolution procedures, doing so does not exempt you from 3RR. Its not an either-or thing. You should pursue dispute resolution, while not reverting the article. This is true even if you believe you believe your version of the article is the right one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Engel Article

Hi again. Since you added that quote from the Engel article, I thought you might have it. Could be useful as a scholarly, and (I'm guessing) positive assessment of the book, and I thought it could be very constructive if you told everyone a bit about what it says when you get back. There's some discussion of it on the talk page, mainly a discussion of its (obvious) reliability.John Z (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John--the Engel article is a perfectly reliable source per WP:RS; I'm not sure why anyone would question it's reliability. It's a far more reliable source than the self published review from an obscure "think tank" that gets a lot of space currently. the David article is used to source the quotes from "Fear," I specifically used the David article to source the quotes so as to have a reliable source stating that the quotes are representative of Gross' thsis, and not just a random quote that I pulled. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree. When you have an ironclad case - like that of the Engel article being reliable, its usually better to just let other (usually very few in number) people say what they want for a while to blow off steam, there's no chance that they could win on that point. I just wanted to know what else Engel had to say, particularly about that quote; what positive, negative or nuanced things it said could be useful in making the article less of a battleground. That quote naturally causes strong emotions in many editors and should be treated with some delicacy. I noticed a Jewish-Polish event where Gross says that Polish anti-semitism wasn't different from any other antisemitism[5] and another recent event where he and Lipstadt had to restrain the audience that wanted them to be more anti-Polish![6]. If it inflames passions so, there is little surprise the article is hard to get right and neutral.John Z (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the book upsets some people--maybe they shouldn't be editing the article if it upsets them so much that they keep trying to literally censor Gross' thesis? Engel describes Gross' quote as a "summation of his basic thesis."

Some other quotes from Engel:

"Gross may be on the mark when he argues that what made Jews unwelcome in postwar Poland was neither their facile identification with the hated communist regime nor their reputation for using the blood of Christian children for ritual purposes."

"Some of Gross’s critics have detected in this thesis a collective indictment of Polish society no less severe and unwarranted than the one they sensed in Neighbors.13 His argument might, however, be seen just as well as mitigating the force of the harsh judgments that the 2000 book invited in some quarters."

"For scholars, of course, the question is not (or ought not to be) what Gross’s work implies about the merits of Polish culture or the ostensible moral character of the Polish nation. Believing that it (or any other piece of historical writing) can tell anything at all about such matters (or about the character of any other human group) requires postulating the existence of some transcendent, eternal essence that shapes all individuals constituting a group at any given moment"

"Instead, readers would do better to ask whether Gross has proven his thesis sufficiently to compel acceptance. Clearly he has not; indeed, in the framework of a relatively brief “essay in historical interpretation,” intended no doubt from the outset to be less exhaustive than suggestive, he could not have done so. On the other hand, the thesis cannot be dismissed a priori, for historians’ understanding of the issues Gross has raised in his book is still far too crude to warrant any immediate determination. Indeed, Gross may yet prove his case."

"In other words, Gross may be on the mark when he argues that what made Jews unwelcome in postwar Poland was neither their facile identification with the hated communist regime nor their reputation for using the blood of Christian children for ritual purposes. But if ethnocracy was the principle that guided many Poles’ thinking about the place of others in their society, fear of losing wartime material gain or of exposure of collusion with the Nazis appear similarly tangential considerations. The main problem with Jews may well have been that they were simply not Poles. Anticommunism, religious prejudice, avarice, or aggressive feelings toward victims may have exacerbated tendencies toward social ostracism, but so far there does not seem to be any compelling reason to believe that any of these supplied their most fundamental motives."

"On the contrary, interpreting the reception of Jewish Holocaust survivors in postwar Poland largely as a manifestation of ethnocratic convictions extending back in time several decades before the Second World War helps clarify why—as Gross has established convincingly—significant elements of both the postwar regime and its most vehement opponents found the thought of a continued Jewish “civic presence” in Poland intolerable, why they expressed their abhorrence in the quite different ways that they did, and why at least some of what they did appears to demonstrate a measure of continuity with earlier episodes in the history of Polish-Jewish relations." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!John Z (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the comment on the talk page that "albeit we should note that he (Gross) is a historian of Jewish, not Polish history - which will give him a certain bias" says more about the editor who made the comment, and the ethnic bigotries which seem to have subsumed discussion of the article, then it does about Gross. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 11:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boodlesthecat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please refer to the 3RR notice. There is no 3RR violation. The report clearly chows that the last 2 edits were completely disfferent, and were in fact to remove offensive antisemitic conspiracy theorizing being inserted into the article. Note as well that this is the second time that Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, an admin heavily involved in edit warring on the article in questiopn, has filed a fabricated 3RR report against me as a tool for his edit wars.

Decline reason:

You are under a misapprehension about the 3RR: you do not get to revert any article more than 3 times in a day, regardless of whether the reverts are the same or not. Just because your reverts were different from each other doesn't mean that you didn't break the 3RR. Given your long history of 3RR blocks, you ought to have known this. Mango juice^talk 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boodlesthecat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Again--there is no 3RR violation. The last two edits listed on the 3RR report, namely this edit and this edit were to remove fringe antisemitic conspiracy theorizing from the article that was offensive. It is ridiculous to be penalized for removing Jew baiting garbage from an article. refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghetto_benches&curid=13611367&diff=215509747&oldid=215477148 this explanation for the antisemtic insertion in to the article, where the Jew bating editor claims the edit is valid because "it shows Jewish stance against Poland." Is this the sort of antisemtic claptrap editing one gets penalized for removing?

Decline reason:

The only exemptions to the 3RR rule are for BLP violations; removing undisputed vandalism and posts from banned users. You have only just come off a 3RR block and there go again... Honestly, you need to learn to leave well alone. If you can't your next edit warring block will be your last. Please take this seriously. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedia's Jew Hater Infestation

Tired of fighting with antisemitic keyboard warrior putzes. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there girlfriend. This, too, shall pass. 198.172.207.48 (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

My advice is not to get into an edit war over that one sentence that is not of much importance in the article. I saw it before, but did not revert it because I decided it is not worth the fight. You can always return to it later. But please do not risk another (longer) block over something not of central inportance to the article. Savlanoot. Please. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Fear" article

(You wrote)
Rather than edit war and rather than falsely claim you didnt remove reliable sourced material discuss your issues on the talk page. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. I appreciate that. Please read my comment at the article's Talk page. --Poeticbent talk 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Żydokomuna reference in history of Jews in Poland

Please explain why you think this link is not necessary. Żydokomuna is an article about antisemitic phrase, used mainly by antisemites, explains the roots of the phrase, why and where it was used. I don't know why you think it should be removed. Do you think blood libel link should be removed too (it's also describes antisemitic phenomenon) ? I invite to discussion on talk page. Szopen (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not anti-semitism related :-P... but don't you think this should have its own article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=pedialyte&fulltext=Search

Instead of redirecting to Oral rehydration therapy where it is not even mentioned by name?

Gatorade has its own page. BillyTFried (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here by accident, but yes, there should be multiple specific references.DGG (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz

I have not revert it but edited it according to a new reliable source that I have found. http://www.mondotimes.com/1/world/il/235/4739/12153 I find it after our discussion and it was different that the orevious. Checked it. Please this is not the three edit rule since I have found a new source.Oren.tal (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling the internet for sources to push your POV. The majority of reliable sources describe Haaretz as "liberal." Please leave it alone. Thanks! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trolling,this is reliable source and it is enough.I don't care that you will mention it as liberal as well but it is still left wing.Oren.tal (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have found only one minor source that says "left leaning" while you ignore all the sources that say "liberal". That is trolling. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

first I find more the one that say that it is left wing.In fact it was mention before me in the discussion.Second Haaretz cab be both liberal and left wing.There is no contradiction.I made it to mention both.Oren.tal (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so obsessed with this. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. --neon white talk 16:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tags make no sense--please discuss on talk page and suggest improvements

And writing on the talk page also makes no sense, because you don't read it.Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deleting reliably sourced information and instigating edit wars.

Please do not insert POVed, disputed, contradictory and likely incorrect information, as you did here, simply because you like it. Please discuss on talk why you think that information is appropriate there. Please do not accuse others of ethical misconduct as you have done on my talk page. As an Wikipedia admin, and a college employee, I assume good faith towards others, even towards anonymous editors with no known qualifications, and expect at least as much courtesy from them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. It's reliably sourced and disputed by YOU--take it up with the editors of the journal if you have a problem with it. And if you continue to behave unethically, I will continue to point it out to you. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained, I dispute your interpretation of this source. If you continue with your personal attacks, don't expect me to respond to you other than to ask for another sanction to be applied to a disruptive account (as in the past).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What interpretation? It's taken directly from the source. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you have a source for moon made out of green cheese. Gazeta Polska was not an organ of the Polish government, it was a newspaper supportive of the government. There is a clear difference, and if Celia Stopnicka Heller is mistaken in her book [7] it is no reason for us to reproduce her error.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You REALLY need to stop deleting scholarly information that you disagree with. If you have sources that dispute it, supply it. YOU are not a reliable source. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding this a bit late, but regarding: "Estimates of the number of Polish collaborators with the Nazi occupation vary from seven thousand to about one million, and up to 10,000 Poles were tried by Polish underground courts for assisting the enemy, and 2,500 were executed.<ref>Klaus-Peter Friedrich. Collaboration in a "Land without a Quisling": Patterns of Cooperation with the Nazi German Occupation Regime in Poland during World War II. ''Slavic Review'', Vol. 64, No. 4, (Winter, 2005), pp. 711-746.</ref>", German scholars are keen to continue to take Nazi propaganda known to be factually contradicted to paint a picture of the Germanless Holocaust in Eastern Europe. This sort of "million collaborator" contentions (Lithuanians in the tens of thousands are accused of actively collaborating in the Holocaust because that is the "only way so many Jews could have been killed") have no basis in reputable scholarship, and at a minimum must be represented as an extremist view and attributed to the sources those statements are based on. Unless you're prepared to represent scholarly sources as to where they appear on the spectrum of contentions, prepare to have such sole representations of "facts" deleted. It's quite simple. Don't pick some article or book and quote it without context. Jewish "scholars" have even taken declassified Soviet archives as factual which claim that units of Russian deserters involved in murdering Jews were actually Ukrainians and Lithuanians. The notion that Nazi and Soviet statements (often based on Nazi propaganda they found useful to denounce Eastern European nationalists) regarding the Holocaust in Eastern Europe are to be taken at face value in a vacuum is not scholarship, it is demonizing and witch-hunting. —PētersV (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's reliably sourced, and the figure was attributed. Are you saying that Slavic Review is publishing extremist views? That Friedrich's article is propagating a viewpoint of a "Germanless Holocaust? That some unnamed Jews masquerading as scholars are muddying the field of history? There are so many "extreme" statement in your post that it is hard to take seriously, that (using underlining for emphasis as you did) your view above must be represented as an extremist view. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland

Just wanted to remind you to be careful about WP:3RR. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fear

I've spent some time looking through the book and trying to find this conclusion but failed. Can someone please provide exact citation and page number of where he writes it ? In the epilogue, Gross accuses the Poles of their indifference in the face of the Holocaust but I couldn't find a statement that they "participated in the Nazi effort to annihilate the Jews". I expect this is a misinterpretation. --Lysy^talk 20:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In line cit to the ref has been added. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still, it's not a proper ref. Who is the author of this text ? Gross does not say this in his book. --Lysy^talk 21:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Piast Institute. I don't consider them terribly reliable a source, but other editors strongly do. They are a Polish American organization, and pretty obscure. I have no problem with you providing an alternate summary from the book. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if we attribute the citation ("according to Piast Institute ...") ? I think they were careless in their words selection. It's not my intention to whitewash the Poles but I'd like the article to reflect what Gross really says in this particular book. --Lysy^talk 21:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better to use another source that offers a summary (there are many reviews in major newspapers). I think most readers will say "Who is the Piast Institute?" They are very obscure, and their information is self published on their own website. Although they claim it is from a "symposium" there is no indication where this "symposium" took place or who participated. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fond of writing wikipedia articles based on newspapers. I'd prefer all the cited opinions to be clearly attributed. Here I'm also a little bothered that we do not even know the name of the author of the summary. Was it a historian ? Or a webmaster who read (?) the book ? Not everything that appears on the web is necessary notable. I'll try to rephrase the sentence a little bit, hope you'll accept it. --Lysy^talk 07:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

Boodles, I've blocked you for 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule on History of the Jews in Poland. If there are persistent issues with that article and/or with other editors on that article, might I suggest that you ask the Mediation Cabal for assistance, rather than edit-warring? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus instigated the edit warring, reverted at least as much as I did, and followed his usual pattern of edit warring in order to instigate a 3RR (assisted once again by Greg park avenue who magically appears on cue as usual to add strategic reverts) rather than civilly and professionally discuss content. This is sad behavior from an admin, and sad that it is continually tolerated. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased the block to 48 hours and blocked you from emailing because you've decided to make attacks against other editors using the wiki-email system. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I suppose I shouldnt have emailed. Maybe I should become an admin an organize a gang of POV pushing cyber bullies. That seems to be allowed. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For going to the mat against a cabal of POV-pushing Polish chauvinists. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a cabal of POV-pushing Polish chauvinists - isn't antipolonism the same as antisemitism? Tymek (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. Look them up. A good dictionary will explain the difference. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is. Or perhaps some people are more important than the others. Tymek (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Full Protection

Hi, I have organised for full protection to be applied to that article for three days due to the intense edit warring and content disputes. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just a quick note reminding you to refrain from personal attacks, especialy whilst mediation is occuring as this will often become a heated debate (though my job is try to and keep it cool). Also I have heard alot about you incivilty, im not hear to jusdge but I think it would be productive if you apologised to Piotrus for calling him a dick via email. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Impartial Mediation

I was actually waiting for you to bring that up, in short, I am impartial and I was merely being friendly and positive to get an objective out the way (Piotrus wont edit the page). Piotrus could probably argue that im favouring your side by organising the full page protection you thought would be usefull. So as you can see Mediation is about getting people to come to the table, however this may require playing both sides from time to time. I hope you understand :-) «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 02:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sources

The Polish death camp issue is someone's original theory?? Excuse me but why didn't you read the sources in the article especially this Adelaide Now article before you vote delete. This is a serious issue with Poles and I can't blame them when someone calls Aushwitz a 'Polish death camp' when it was built and run by the Nazis who came from Germany. Artene50 (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read the source (a newspaper article). It reports "Warsaw points to references to "Polish gas chambers" or the "Polish concentration camps" in world media as evidence Poles are wrongly portrayed as collaborators with the Nazis in killing Jews." The article is called Polish death camp controversy. Again--where is the controversy (read the definition of a "controversy")? A controversy implies two sides who disagree. Where is the other side? Where are the sources that show people who actively disagree--i.e, where are the people saying "no, they should be called Polish death camps becuase the Poles collaborated"? There are none--hence, the "controversy" is manufacured, and hence not encyclopedic. The news quote can be included in any number of other articles, but to give it its own article is to validate an unsourced conspiracy theory. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your message on my talkpage Boodlesthecat. I would just say that this 2006 BBC article also shows that it is not an original theory--the Polish government also had serious issues about it. Its all about perception here unfortunately. It is certainly notable--or else it would not be in this BBC page. Cheers, Artene50 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an Aside, this is a message by the American Jewish committee where they explicitly apologise for the use of the term 'Polish camps.' [8] It might be of interest to you. Artene50 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the issue is non-existent, i'm saying that there is no controversy. There is one instance where Canadian TV didnt change immediately because they felt the usage was standard. But they retracted anyway soon after. Where is the controversy? It all seems one-sided--pit forth by the Polish government and some who propose a conspiracy to discredit Poland. But they can point to no conspirators! Btw, according to the source you provided, the AJC didnt "apologize," they issued a diplomatic statement in support of Poland. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I would say that your objections are grounds for editing the article of any conspiracy laden issues and perhaps changing its title but not outright deletion. I admit the article is primarily written from a Polish perspective. It may not be a controversy if you are American, British or Russian, but it certainly would be for the Poles who suffered major population losses during WWII themselves. Well it was nice corresponding with you. Cheers, Artene50 (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who are concerned about the issue, and its a real issue. I'm just questioning it having its own article--its already fully covered in Anti-Polish sentiment. This just becomes a fork to present the views of a government, which is not encyclopedic. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's baaaaack!

Permanently banned sockpuppeteer and POV-pushing hostile online stalker FOC Griot has returned to making dubious edits to Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns, Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2004‎, User talk:Griot and other pages.

From admin Moonriddengirl "Seems like a matter for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, though I don't know what, if anything, would be done about it. I suppose checkuser might confirm if Griot edited from those ranges before (or might have already done; I'm not reviewing the last checkuser). But I don't think a rangeblock would be forthcoming, as it would quite probably affect a good many more users than Griot. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

I told her those are his ranges, and I'd let you know. Thanks, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should Holocaust in Lithuania be mentioned in article about collaboration in WWII?

I thought you may be interested in this; see here (removal of the second para). Perhaps this time we can work together? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can rewrite it? Although I have written most of the Holocaust in Lithuania article (fascinating... this is where the Holocaust begun...), by doing so, I have earned some animosity from the Lithuanian editors. Input from a neutral editor would be appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first - the issue is not Holocaust in Lithuania, issue is in Nazi-occupied Lithuania.

Now to other issues - collaborators were important, but absolutely not the key issue in Holocaust in Nazi occupied territories. Key issue was, that Nazis started the war with Soviet Union with an idea to instigate locals, and clear attempt to hide their involvement. It is documented by SS Brigedenfuerer Stalhecker, who was personally responsible for crating Einsatzgruppen and mobile units in Tilsit, that started "cleansing" as soon Nazis crossed border. Some of his deeds can be seen in "Extracts from a Report by Einsatzgruppe a in the Baltic Countries". jewishvirtuallibrary.org. Retrieved 2008-08-06. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) And his report is huge, hundreds of pages.

User Piotrus did indeed earn animosity for attempt to replace scholarly sources with sources that fits better with his POV, or even removing them completely (one of latest such edits [9] ) . It's rather bizarre to see, how for example one author (Bubnys) is called a prominent historian in one place, and POV basher - in another place, where his research does not fit one's gust. An intent to support one's bias than write WP:NPOV articles is rather clear visible from search keywords formulation int he google books search (they are seen all around references).

And a last remark: no i do not intend to whitewash any side, I just want the Wikipedia to function according the rules, in this case WP:NPOV. I do not deny the collaboration, an participation of collaborants in Holocaust, but I do not agree with current formulation of the articles about Nazi-occupation, and Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania for an instance. It should be rewritten to make it more neutral, because in the current form it seems that Holocaust happened in independent Lithuania, and the Nazi's were just standing and watching horriffied, by what was happening, and even were afraid to interfere.

There are many well referenced monographs on the subject, and one has to read them, to understand what was going on, and who was behind it, not not google-search for one's beliefs (if not to say stronger word) supporting citations.--Lokyz (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lokyz. I think it's generally understood that Lithuanian collaboration was a key part of the implementation of the Holocaust in that country. Were there little or no collaboration, no doubt the Nazis would have found a means to carry out the genocide, but Lithuania had a specific documented history. Given the interrelationship of the Holocaust in Lithuania and colaboration in Lithuania, I don't think it's a matter of covering one aspect or the other. I understand this is a sensitive subject, but many nations have such unseemly facets of their history--American genocide of Native Americans and enslavement of Africans, South African apartheid, Poland and Russia's history of violent pogroms, etc etc. As to the Lithuanian-Polish issues involved, I'm not qualified to really comment; I'd urge you and Piotrus and others to rely on reliable sources, and where there is disagreement, seek outside comment. Good luck. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not agree on "generally", although is one of few mainstream views (and one reference is surely not enough), so other views should be reflected per WP:NPOV. It's a long narrative, and i do intend to put it here: main point - there was no pogroms in independent Lithuania, so "general" statements that antisemitsm was as a part of Lithuanian national charachter "as in all other East european countries" is more than dubuos and is denied by many scholarly books, including written by Israel historians.

And I do have a qestion about difference between 'think', 'know' and 'was told'. Thank you.--Lokyz (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lokyz--again, my smaller point was that I believe it is the case that Lithuanian collaboration was a key part of the implementation of the Holocaust in Lithuania; i.e., beginning around c. 1941. I believe that is generally supported by historians. I wasn't commenting on issues of pre-war anti-semitism, pogroms, etc., and don't plan for now of getting into that aspect (although I would be happy to look at any sources you recommend). For now, I am reluctant to get further into a dispute in which I suspect I would simply wind up getting battered by both sides and probably couldn't be of much help.

I don't think, as you have said, that you have any intention of whitewashing any side. However, it's a reality that facts can be skewed one way or another with the absolute best of intentions. This often arises when editors find themselves taking personally, or being personally affronted, by aspects of history relative to their own identity. I have spent a fair amount of time trying to balance a number of articles in which the facts seemed skewed due to emotional editing. I've jumped in on many "sides"--Jews, African Americans, Mexicans, Israelis and Palestinians, etc. I'm an American--articles on American history are filled with accounts of brutal things carried out by America over history. I do not take this accounts personally, or feel that they are insults to me.

Currently, the article History of Jews in Poland is under arbitration for difficulties that stem from this problem. For example, it is pretty much universally accepted and understood that anti-semitism is intrinsic to the history of Jews in Poland. However, some editors feel that stating that is offensive, defamatory, insulting. They have difficulty separating the historical fact from a charge (not being made) that "all Poles are antisemites." As an American, I don't consider myself as a murderer of Native American, or an enslaver of Africans Americans, despite the fact that my country was founded upon those actions. I can appreciate the distinctions. In any case, I'd recommend seeking outside, impartial looks at any conflict areas that arise, particularly if its the case that there are competing and incompatible worldviews. We are actually making slow, small progress in the History of Jews in Poland article and related articles.It may take time, but its a better way of proceeding. Good luck! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New antisemitism

Since you have been involved in editing the New antisemitism article, I would be interested in having you view of the current discussion concerning Tariq Ali [10], if you agree with me or not. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, I would like to find a way to improve the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. To a large extent I agree with what you wrote. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are following the discussion, but I thought you might be interested in reading the Tariq Ali article that the disputed paragraph comes from [11]. I can't understand how such crap ever got into the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a fair amount of crap in the article. However, much of it is reliably sourced crap. Ali, as tedious as his article is, is a reliable source for this article. Remember, much of what this article is about is a heated standoff between two diametrically opposed sides, both of which are dominated by hard-core ideologues. The best we can do is present what the two sides have to say in a fair manner. Ali is a recognized spokesperson for a view that the promoters of the "new antisemitism" concept identify as being an example of new antisemitism. So we are sort of obligated to present his response on behalf of the political grouping he is a spokesperson for. Remember, both you and I have added reliably sourced, relevant material to other articles that others might view as "crap" and have attempted to block! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the conversation with Slrubenstein [12] on my talk page? I had offered to compromise previously, but did not even get a reply. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also read [13], in which csloat claims "consensus". Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before putting it on the article talk page, I will wait to see how Slrubenstein replies. I consider him to be very reasonable, not to mention experience with WP; and I hope to avoid the unnecessary stumbling around that could follow if he has significant objections. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in my experience he Slr reliable and knowledgeable on the subject. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Margolick

Agree that my update was too wordy, but it's vital to make clear where Nazi accounts of the conduct of Eastern Europeans is taken as factual. There is extensive evidence those accounts are not true--with cases documented where "official" reports are directly contradicted in other Nazi official correspondence by individuals not involved in directly managing the Holocaust in Eastern Europe. Cheers! —PētersV (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of contention

You wrote several times that "anti-semitism is intrinsic to the history of Jews in Poland", but that does not equal to the statement that "all Poles are antisemites". Yet the first statement is a problematic generalization, akin to "history of mankind is history of war" for example. Of course there was anti-semitism in Poland. But at the same time, Poland was for centuries known as paradisus Iudaeorum. We cannot reconcile that in one statement. Consider:

there was rising anti-antisemitism in the Second Polish Republic. But there was rising anti-antisemitism in all contemporary Europe. "Anti-semitism is intrinsic to the history of Jews in Europe" would be more correct (although it omits the issue of the Middle East); singling out any country is much less so.
for centuries, Poland has been one of the most hospitable countries in Europe with regard to Jewry (hence the paradisus Iudaeorum). This has changed with partitions, when anti-semitic "divide and conquer" Russian government policies had a lasting success in making many Poles increasingly anti-semitic; hence the "rising anti-semitism" in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But saying that "anti-semitism is intrinsic to the history of Jews in Poland" and forgetting about centuries of previous tolerance is an obvious error. Not to mention that it is hardly true that "anti-semitism" is intrinsic to the history of modern (post-1989) Jews in Poland.

This is no different from żydokomuna phenomena: only a minority of Jews in a tiny part of their history were responsible for that meme, but it became generalized to majority of them, lasting long after the communism has waned from the global scene. Bottom line is: generalizations are logical fallacies and should be avoided. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this: Racism is intrinsic to the history of the United States, and civil liberties are intrinsic to the United States. The statement that "anti-semitism is intrinsic to the history of Jews in Poland" and the history of tolerance are not contradictory. They are historical realities. "anti-semitism is intrinsic to the history of Jews in Poland" is not a generalization, its a well established historic fact (as is the intrinsicness of racism in the US.) It does not negate the paradisus Iudaeorum, nor does the paradisus Iudaeorum negate the intrinicness of antisemitism to the history of Polish Jews. If you are going to study history, and to write history, you have to appreciate nuance, layerdness, multiple tracks, dynamic relationships and the like. You can't A. look at everything as black or white, either/or, and B. You cannot let emotion or sentimentality color your understanding. For me as an American to try to minimize or rationalize the genocide of Native Americans, or slavery would not be good science.

The paradox, Piotrus, is that the methodology I see you and some of your colleagues using ironically is one that is based on a belief in collective guilt (a concept I generally reject on scientific grounds, although the moral aspects are somewhat different). By translating through your perceptual apparatus statements such as "anti-semitism is intrinsic to the history of Jews in Poland" into the memes you hold onto, specifically "therefore, that is a statement that all Poles are anti-semites" or "therefore, that statement really means all Poles are evil" you are, ironically, giving credence to the concept of collective guilt. I understand where you are coming from--there are Americans who translate the strong criticisms of American policy in Iraq etc into a belief that these critics are saying "all Americans are evil." That, of course, is not true, and to the extent critics of American policy hold the belief that all Americans are evil, they are simply bigots or misguided.

Consider also: America gives huge amounts of aid to the needy globally; and America has caused the deaths of large numbers of poor people internationally. Historical, geopolitical, cultural, etc realities are complex.

African American culture thrived in America within a stifling racism. Polish Jewish culture thrived within a stifling anti-Semitism.

The zydokomuna phenomena is more nuanced than you describe. You leave out key questions--why did Jews get blamed (despite the reality that relatively few Jews were involved, despite the attraction communism held, mainly for its opposition to antisemitism.) Why did Poles need a scapegoat for communism, or Soviet domination. Why were the Jews that scapegoat? Why is there still "antisemitism without Jews? What was it about the conditions under which Polish Jews lived in 1939 that did have many of them welcome the Soviets?

Appreciating the complexities of the world, rather than fearing them can be vey educational, and a bit liberating. Give it a shot. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is indeed not a contradiction. It is that by giving only a one sided account - a part of the big picture - one is misrepresenting the issue. Yes, racism is a part of the US history. But to say just that and to not mention how it was and is being overcomed creates a biased picture, which I am sure would be offending (and rightly so) to many Americans. In the interwar period, the wave of antisemitism was rising across Europe. Poland was, sadly, not an exception. Once a haven, it was betraying its sizeable Jewish population, which led to some Polish Jews to describe it in a dark color, likely darker than if they were living in a country where Jews were more used to centuries of intolerance (this is not my argument, but I forgot which scholar made it). In the end, Polish-Jewish history should all be seen in the perspective, and most certainly emotional arguments (or reviews) are simply not suitable for encyclopedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing to see what's one-sided here. History of the Jews in Poland seems to give ample coverage to the earlier age, and I don't think anyone would object to even further expansion. However--and this is the point you seem to have difficulty with--the Poland in 1937 that Polish Jews lived in effectively had little or nothing to do with that earlier period. It was dark, and generastion after generation had lived and died through an extended period of discrimination, which escalated to the point that by 1939, Poland was forging its own version of Nurenberg Laws, Jews were blocked from any form of participation in the life of the country, and plans were afoot for the outright expulsion of its Jewish population. We can only speculate on what the course would be had not the event of Sept 1939 intervened.

There is balance and there is balance. The balance you are advocating seems to be analogous to insisting that "sure, Native epopel in America had some rough times lately, but don't forget, they lived quote happily in America 500 years ago." It's not the same America, and its not the same Poland. Should we apply the same qualifications abstracted from history to the Nazi period ("well, Germany was also the home of the Jewish enlightenment, and the emancipation movement...") For Jews, Poland from at least 1918 on has been a disaster. From the perspective of Polish Jewry, 1939 was simply moving from the frying pan of interwar Poland, with it's deep anti-semitism, into the fire of the Nazis. Complex historical factors resulted in a Hitler arising in Germany and not elsewhere, but the grassroots antisemitism he drew on was the same as found in Poland (some would argue even more virulent). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize that the opinions you expressed above are simplifications, justifiable only in User talk. The reality of prewar Poland was a lot more complex and so were the feelings of Jews and Poles (in great many towns almost equal in numbers, thus a lot safer in their sense of identity than you care to admit), neither of them aware of the unimaginable scale of the impending doom. I hope that, in the main space, things will never be as black and white as they look in here. --Poeticbent talk 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, interwar Poland was a splendid place for Polish Jews. From a PBS documentary, which summarizes the accounts of literally hundreds of hsitorical sources

Again, by an additional historical paradox, the Polish Jews, accused by antisemites of secretly hoarding wealth for dishonorable purposes, were actually the poorest of all Jewish continental communities, and many were literally subsisting below the poverty level. This process was accelerated in the 1930s by government economic measures (aimed at transferring most enterprises into Polish hands) which amounted to economic strangulation of broad sections of the Jewish population, and was also exacerbated by other discriminatory measures, such as the restriction of Jewish students in universities (the infamous "numerous clausus"), random violence on streets and schools, and open adulation of Nazi anti-Jewish measures across the border. The powerful Catholic Church failed to take a stand against the official antisemitic policies of the ruling class (some even condoned it, accusing theJews, as in Cardinal Hlond's 1936 pastoral letter, of corroding the morals of the youth).

To the extent that you continue to deny this, I'd suggest that it is you who continue to portray history in a simplistic fashion. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Zydokomuna

Just provide the requested cites, and expand on the statements in need of clarification. What's difficult about that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you - via the commonly used templates - to add the cites to the end of the sentences. That's all.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of Blood Libel at Deir Yassin

I disagree with your edit of this article. I have posted my comments to the talk page. Please respond. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Protection

You will be most pleased to know that it has been un-protected. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2

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/Piotrus 2/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/Piotrus 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 22:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Consensus" on quotes

If you are interested in Piłsudski, I am sure you can take time and read the discussion on his talk page. You don't have to bother wit old archives.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that article's status as FA/GA and so on merits extra attention. Those articles are supposed to be "best of" wikipedia, and that includes the stability criterium. Those articles have been recognized as neutral and comprehensive by the community, and if one disagrees, the proper way is not to revert war, defending new, controversial content but discussion on talk with the aim of gaining consensus for one's changes, or WP:GAR/WP:FARC and so on. That said, I do hope to see Piłsudski article back regain stability, and I am glad you approve of the current wording.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal

Although this may come as a surprise, I have always supported expanding content related to history of Polish Jews, up to and including the interwar antisemitism. Perhaps you'd like to contribute to article on Stanisław Grabski I've started long time ago (probably one of the most virulent Polish nationalists/antisemites of all times), or about the antisemitic endecja movement? I am all for expansion of such topics, within due weight (Grabski - as unpleasant person as he was - should not be seen as an average Pole or mentioned in every article about Polish interwar history...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Meow" is redundant

Why don't you remove the "meow" from your future postings? It's more appropriate to personal emails than to Wiki discussion pages. Besides, it's obvious from your user name that you're fond of cats.--Dking (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would second this request. Seignatures are supposed to facilitate communication, especially in the english wikipedia, which is highly multilungual multicultural. The word "talk" is understood by all. What "meow" means is not as clear to all as you think. But if you want to continue having some fun by annoying such boring stiff suits like me, I am fine with this. `'Míkka >t 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That latter option seems just to hard to resist and more fun than tearing up a new couch. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodle's response sounds like pawsive-aggressive behavior to me.--Dking (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, ~~barnstars~~, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:greg park avenue

Have you tried asking him about it? In any case, I also have an advice for you: accusing people of antisemitism should not be done lightly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think greg is an antisemite? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Boodles that this is cause for deep concern. I have posted a note asking the clerk of that case to refactor. IronDuke 23:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me, in detail, what is antisemitic in the greg diff's you linked to me. Perhap's I am tired and I am missing something obvious. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious or not, I've asked you several times to explain to me that in detail, and you've constantly refused to do so. Why? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if you cannot explain to me what in his posts is antisemitic, I am afraid I cannot help you easily.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what's difficult in saying "Greg comment is antisemitic because it...". Unfortunately, all I've heard from you so far is "Greg comment is antisemitic." Three months or not, that's not enough to make your case.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like to learn what's antisemitic about those comments. Couldn't you educate me, so I can prevent such occurrences in the future? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemites

So you do not think that all Poles are antisemites? You do not think that history of the Jews in Poland is one long history of Polish antisemitism? This is great news, given the fact that thousands of Jews somehow settled in Poland, not in Sweden, France or Ireland, it was weird to claim that antisemitism has always been part of Polish-Jewish history.

I am taking back what I wrote and I am apologizing. Thank you. Finally I see a little change. Greetings. Tymek (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting my apologies, you are very nice. Since you do not think that all Poles are antisemites, I am hoping it will reflect in your contributions here. Tymek (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no change on my part, since I never actually said "all Poles are antisemites" (and apparently you cannot supply a diff I requested indicating that I ever did say such a thing. And, as always, I will continue to supply well sourced material to articles, so you needn't worry about my contributions. And again, I accept your apology for your false insinuations that I had ever said such a thing. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human shield

Hi Boodles. Could you do me a favor and keep an eye on Human shield. A pair of sockpuppets are trying to insert a strong POV paragraph, and I've reverted it 3 times. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleting of sourced info

please stop deleting sourced information, this is vandalism. Tymek (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please do not change the subject. Here [14] you removed a referenced info, and this is vandalism. Since we are both engaged in Poland-related articles, it is obvious that our paths cross here and there. Tymek (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explained on your talk page that I was fixing refs which got interrupted by a bot, and then you jumped in within 4 miniutes with an uncivil, bogus, malicious vandalism charge. As noted on your talk page, either cease these violations of WP:CIVIL (bogus claims of vandalism are considered such a violation) or I will report you for your ongoing personal attacks you are littering my talk page and article talk pages with. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to apologise, I saw that you removed a referenced information, and no matter what you say this is vandalism. If you want to, you can report me wherever you want.Tymek (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The civil thing to do would be to ask why it was removed, and not jump in 4 minutes later with a BS vandalism claim. Since you seem to not understand Wikipedia's assume good faith policies and are intent on a relentless nasty series of attacks against me, I have to ask that you no longer post anything on my talk page nor waste my time with your malicious personal attacks. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:You must be kidding

I am not kidding. Try assuming some good faith, and please provide refs to that article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The good faith I was assuming was the chance that you might have been kidding. I guess I was wrong. You have used up the last bit of my large reservoir of good faith with that malicious article defacement. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kidding, I plan on doing more of it. You should try it, too - improving quality of articles is fun. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

anti-Semitism

Hi, I had time just now only for a brief look at the background, and left a comment n the talk page that seems to be in question. I have to tell you that right now is not the best time for me to take decisive steps ... if you look at the two or three sections above your comment on my talk page, you will see that I have spent the evening engaged in a little conflict that led to calls for my immediate de-sysoping on the AN/I page. (If you have the free time you can reconstruct the whole story).

But I want to help. Can you provide me with more background? hat started the conflict? What are the core issues - in terms of article contents and specific personal behaviors? Can you provide me with more blatant examples of anti-Semitic remarks or editing?

Also, I suggest you police your own behavior very carefully - I say this as a friend. i see you deleted comments by another editor on talk pages. As y9ou know we never do this. i see the user was banned - was he banned before or after you removed his comments from talk pages? i know how hurtful and frustrating this is but now more than ever you need to have the high ground; be civil, patient, scrupulously adhere to all policies.

Let m lknow what you think of the comment I wrote, and provide me with whatever additional background including edit differences you think I need and I will do more tomorrow. best, Slrubenstein | Talk 06:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It is hard for me to comment on past behavior. What I need is for you to alert me any time he makes an inappropriate edit or comment and I will see if I can respond immediateloy.

In the meantime there are other steps you should take.

First, keep scrupulous and separate records of two things: all edit deifs for edits to articles that you think illustrate a pattern of POV pushing that violates on of our core content policy; a list of edit diffs will hep you if you eventually take this to AN?I. Second, all edit diffs of explicitly anti-Semitic comments on talk pages, in case you ever take him to ArbCom. It has to be explicit anti-Semitic comments, not edits that you think suggest a general anti-Semitic bias.

Second, do an RFC first for historians, then leave messages at the Holocaust, Anti-Semitism, and Jewish History talk pages. The RFC cannot be on personal behavior i.e. his anti-Semitism. it has to be on a specific edit conflict, or set of closely related edit conflicts, concerning the contents of one or a couple of related articles. The point is you need to distinguish between edits to articles and edits to talk pages; edits to articles are governed by content polciies not personal behavior policies; and you need to get more people involved in the discussion. If he is not an anti-Semite, more community scrutiny and rigorous use of core content policies will eventually lead him to give up (if he is indeed wrong). If he is realy an anti-Semite, th insistence that he comply with content policies will frustrate him and provoke a blatant anti-Semitic comment on a talk page. Bottom line: you need to act on two fronts The two fronts are related but you have to deal with the separately.

I hope none of this is patronizing, maybe this is what you have already done. Bu right now it seems too complicated for a newcomer to figure out. Now is the time to start keeping the orderly records that will help anyone see the problem immediately.

Finally, be temperate. Yes, edit summaries calling someone a troll or POV pusher are inflammatory but this happens all the time and are NOT central to your real concerns. Don't mix in accusations against generically hostile edit summaries with this stuff. Focus on the truly unacceptable, not the irritating. I hope this helps. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I chuckle. I left another comment for him - I want to see how he responds. In these cases my philosophy is: "Give 'em enough rope." Let out the leash on him. If he is not an anti-Semite, his behavior will improve (and to be honest with you I think many non-Jews are very insensitive without being out and out anti-Semites, I think this is true for many cases of apparent racism ... in some cases one just needs to explain - with care and without anger - how a remark the person made was, regardless of his intentions, hurtful. Let's face it, lots of people have never seen Merchant of Venice! Some people will take that to heart. But when dealing with a real anti-Semite, the more they talk, the clearer it becomes. So, let's see. In the meantime you really have to be as pure as Caeser's wife in case this escalates. let's see. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

I'm trying not to get involved. I hope you can understand. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic church

Hi, have you looked into the response of the Catholic church? Organizing Rescue Scroll down to page 285.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lvov

You may need an RfC. Also, if you are not already, familiarize yourself with this discussion. You need to frame issues very clearly and then get LOTS of uninvolved editors to comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Promethean changed your comment and argues that you didn't mind, while I doubt you even know about it. I, for one, am not going to take further attacks of him - just look at this (and there are even more attacks of him against User:AuburnPilot just because I filled him in on it). Sciurinæ (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to adopt that kid, quick. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see the couple are conspiring as per usual. PS: I was adopted and passed with flying colours, Im a knowlegeable editor of Wikipedia «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that you had doctored my entry without my knowledge is hardly conspiratorial behavior m'boy. I'd recommend that you heed the warnings on your talk page (you know, the ones that say "Final warning") before you become a knowledgeable EX-wikipedian. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sockpuppet...

I saw that earlier.

I wonder why I would leave my sock a message asking myself to watch an article, instead of changing identity and evading 3RR. Logic isn't his strong suit. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: History of Polish Jews

I have not implied anywhere that the article lost the FA status because of you, as this indeed would be a lie. I've implied that in the past, it gained it without you, and my impression is that your current edits have not helped it to regain it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report on ANI re edit warring

[15] For your information. You and Piotrus are discussed here. Risker (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1RR restrictions

Hi Boodlesthecat, this message is being sent to inform you that after a discussion on ANI, you are here by restricted to no more than one revert when dealing with Piotrus (generally speaking). Any violation of said restriction will result in a block. Tiptoety ^talk 13:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re other admins' comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence

I have inserted your suggested items - thanks. However, within the 1,000-word limit (not currently being enforced), there isn't room for much more. I'm kind of a color-inside-the-lines person, with due respect for civil disobedience, which doesn't however seem called for here, since all the members of the current committee seem honest and fair. If you think this is a good direction, and find more examples, could you put them in your section? Regards, Novickas (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Hi Boodles. Based on the format used by others, I think you're supposed to give titles to your proposed findings of fact and proposed remedies and make them sub-headers. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

et tu

At the moment, Piotrus and I seem to be having a civil and perhaps productive conversation. So what purpose is served by your intervening in our conversation right now? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. But I think the best way you can serve your cause is to draw others into the discussion. I have expressed myself pretty fully and I don't think it would help for me to continue commenting - many will conclude it is just something personaly between me and Greg or P. Please consider the possibility that this may be the case for you, too. If you are right and you are not just pushing a Jewish POV, and others are instead making anti-Semitic comments, then other editors who review these discussions will reach the same conclusion and they will comment. I suggest you would be better off getting a larger circle of editors to comment, than for you to continue engaging with them personally. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cointelpro

We did discuss specific problems on Talk. Did you read Talk? We said the sources are the most biased imaginable; Churchill isn't even reliable. I'll mention this on talk before reverting to replace the tag (later)... Please, let's not engage in an edit war.... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[16]

Arthur Wolak reference

Are you sure it's self published and not just a small press? What are you basing it on?radek (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 10 days for violating your 1RR restriction on Żydokomuna (the first revert was [17] to [18]; the second was [19] to [20]). Please remember that just the presence of an RFC that you're participating in doesn't give you a license to edit war absent a consensus with regards to content. If you believe this block to be unjustified, you can appeal by placing {{unblock|your reason here...}} on your talkpage. east718 // talk // email // 03:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those were unrelated reverts. 1RR, like 3RR, applies to reverts that are the same, or substantially the same. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is not correct. Please take a look at WP:3RR. Tiptoety ^talk 03:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia for at least 3 years, and I've always thought it was exactly as Boodlesthecat described. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this can be confusing to 3RR newcomers, Boody at the very least should be quite familiar with that aspect in practice, as he this was explained to him during his last 3RR block (by Mangojuice).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boodlesthecat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The instructions to me were to not revert Piotrus or a "neutral editor" maikng the same edits as Piotrus. These are decidedly not neutral editors. In fact, Piotrus has actively been shopping for edit warriors to support him on this article for days, see here, and here, for just two examples easily found. This evidence that Piotrus has for days actively trying to subvert his own 1RR restriction by recruiting editt warriors indicates at a minimum that Piotrus should receive equal penalties as I do. Although to my understandinjg, having been instructed not to revert Piotrus and "neutral editors" (rather than edit warriors he recruited) I do not feel I have violated the 1RR (at least as I understand the instructions)

Decline reason:

You knew your restrictions, you knew that your edits were edit-warring. Everything else is wikilawyering semantics, Piotrus did not actively recruit "edit-warriors" in an underhand manner. I see no reason to unblock — Woody (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've unblocked you, based on several factors which I think are mitigating. First, you were canvassed against, and second, the restrictions you're under are somewhat obtuse (1rr against Piotrus and co. only). I'm convinced that a ten-day block is excessive and have removed your block on editing. east718 // talk // email // 02:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Recruited" non-neutral editor

While it is true Piotrus provided a pointer to the article in question, it is entirely inappropriate to characterize me as an edit warrior somehow doing Piotrus' bidding. I have had a personal interest in the topic for a rather long time. In fact, I met and discussed Polish anti-semitism and perceptions thereof with one of the authors cited in the article (Cherry) long before Boodlesthecat and I became aware of each other. I have decided to participate in the article on its own merits and on the basis of my own research on the topic, that research long predating my edit (or, indeed, Piotrus having any awareness that I might even have an interest in the topic). That I preserved Boodlesthecat's reference but in NPOV wording indicating that there is some controversy (what is portrayed is not universally accepted) confirms my participation as a netural editor. A rationale for my edit (and subsequent clarifications) are available on the article talk page.
As Piotrus' pointer cited by Boodlesthecat is completely public, I fail to see the grounds for collusion and especially as my interest in the specific topic, to the point of attending university seminars, et al.--far predates any current warring. Any editor who has dealt with me for any length of time will confirm that I am not in the habit of being another editor's lackey. I resent and repudiate Boodlesthecat's accusation of bad faith. —PētersV (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, despite your long-standing interest in the subject, you have exactly one edit to the article. Hmmm. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You imply it's the last, perhaps? I've been active on the topic of anti-Semitism in Baltic/Central/Eastern Europe, take a look at the Holocaust in Lithuania article and discussions there. The topic, more generally, is the portrayal of numerous countries as having harbored deep-seated anti-Semitism for centuries (by some sources, not all). I've been more involved in the Baltic area article wise because of my heritage, however, Poland in particular sticks out as the country where the accusations are the most far-reaching and where there is the greatest gap between popular perceptions and historical realities (actually, one of Cherry's findings, albeit not completely scientific), hence my long-standing interest. If you've got an accusation to make, please make it, otherwise bag the "Hmmm" innuendo. —PētersV (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your latest comment, we can continue there. —PētersV (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks PētersV protesteth too much:

Here Piotrus recomments that Vecumbra write some relaxing content or comment in the Zydokomuna page.
And then here PētersV/(Vecrumba) makes his first ever edit to that article, removing the exaxct same reliably sourced content that Piotrus and others he had recruited had removed. Yet PētersV complains "it is entirely inappropriate to characterize me as an edit warrior somehow doing Piotrus' bidding." Hmmmm, OK! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 12:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored your extensive quote of a single author in what is supposed to be an introduction leaving the reference to the work intact. And added mention of an author who would be mor popuparly known with regard to a "tradition" of Polish anti-Semitism. And specifically indicated no objection to that reference being in the body of the article in my edit statement. The introduction was, after my edit, NPOV instead of being (your) single-source axe-grinding. I'm sorry, but considering the hateful words you've painted into my mouth on multiple occasions, you're not the objective party here. The edit was completely neutral and NOT a revert and NOT a replacement with whatever Piotrus wrote before.

And edit activity aside, have YOU met any of the authors cited in the article? —PētersV (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history shows that after Piotrus personally recruited you to edit the disputed Zydokomuna article, you showed up, and in your first ever edit to the article dove right into the section Piotrus was disputing in support of Piotrus' POV. It's bad enough that a group of editors consistently tries to rewrite history in srticle mainsapces; please don't do it as well on my talk page as well. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) As I stated, it's an article introduction. You devoted half the introduction to extensively referencing a single author. That's not an intro. I summarized the key point YOU were making with the work YOU were referencing leaving YOUR reference to Gerrits intact while adding a reference to an author who would likely be far more familiar to an interested reader. I'm not Piotrus' lackey and I'm not your enemy here. It's up to you whether you want to see our first extended interchange as a misunderstanding gone terribly wrong or if you want to pull out the heavy guns and keep escalating. I've discussed this topic (in person) with one of the authors cited in the article, have you?—PētersV (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And do you really think anyone could be so stupid as to jump in to be an "edit warrior" when a pointer to the article has been mentioned in as public a place as possible, in the middle of a dispute? Oh, please! Your revert of my edit had nothing to do with my content, it was only your knee-jerk reaction to your personal belief I'm a Piotrus lackey and now you're crying over it. —PētersV (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can always discuss on my talk or the talk of admins where your supporters have rushed to your defense crying unfair. BTW, I'm not part of any "group." —PētersV (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My interest right now is bringing to light the truly deplorable and underhanded team edit warring tactics Piotrus has been engaging in for far too long (and which are now under serious scrutiny, which he seems oddly unconcerned about) to push a fringe perspective that consistently attempts to whitewash the extensive history of Polish anti-semitism and which promotes an antiquated and bigoted viewpoint which blames Jews for their persecution, and which is debunked in mainstream schiolarly literature. I take no pleasure in seeing you drawn in by virtue of being recruited by Piotrus towards these ends ("lackey" is your own word), however, your actions are your own choice. This wasn't the first time you had shown up on my page in support of Piottrus' views; in this one, you appeared with (as we discussed) a rather bizarre argument casting aspersion on Jewish "scholars" (you put the word in quotes) whose Jewishness you somehow found to be connected to a supposed unreliability on their part. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Boodles, we have been over that last topic which resulted in your increasing escalation putting ever more hateful anti-Semitic "in other words" paraphrases into my mouth which had nothing to do with my position and everything to do with your personal witch hunt, in which anyone that is in the group you hunt is apparently part of an antisemitic anti-Boodles cabal. If you continue to insist on posting everywhere that I stated Jewish sources are unreliable because they are Jewish, a blatant and hateful lie, I will seek appropriate remedy. —PētersV (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish historiography": Yet moreJew baiting by Piotrus

Piotrus wants to let readers know that the commonplace scholarly consensus that there was a "strong tradition of anti-Semitism" in Poland from which the antisemitic Zydokomuna found its support is in fact a view of "Jewish historiography" rather than general history of the region. Piotrus wants to make sure you know that certain Polish communists were Jewish, despite the fact that it has been pointed out to him more than once that the Manual of Style for Bios instructs that "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." This has been pointed out to Piotrus in the past, yet he continues to feel that readers should know that some disreputable people were indeed JEWS. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources quoted referenced in the article go on at length about the ethnicity of the Polish communists (this is speaking to the interwar period), and of communist de-ethnification and of leadership taken by certain groups. Apparently the authors cited believe it's important, otherwise they wouldn't write about it. —PētersV (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style says ""Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Piotrus and other editors (most notably Poeticbent) seem to think the Jewish backgrounds of Polish communists are relevant to their notability (they are not, and their ethnicity only peripherally figures in their notability to the extent that they were persecuted for their backgrounds by Polish antisemites, communist and noncommunist). Yet Piotrus and Poeticbent seem to hold to the Zydokomuna myth themselves, in that they feel there is some outstanding notability to these Jewish backgrounds, to the extent that they need to overide the MoS.

More indicative of Piotrus' view that there is some sort of specialness to Juewishness that is woprth noting, in his edit to the lead cited above, where he seems to think that the view that Poland had a "strong tradition of anti-Semitism" (a commonplace view universally accepted by mainstream historians) is somehow a "Jewish viewpoint" ("Jewish historiography" ). There can't possibly be an objective view that Poland has a "strong tradition of anti-Semitism"--it must be a Jew view! And to the extent that non-Jewish historians hold that view (and there are many) I suppose they are somehow infected with this Jew view. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoS would be referring to things like noting whether the robber of a bank or a founder of a university was Jewish, Polish, or a Vogon. In an article involving individuals of specific ethnic groups, those ethnic groups would be significant. Perhaps you'd like to review the articles/books cited currently in Żydokomuna and write to the authors that they were in error when, for example, discussing the ethnic composition of jailed Communists and of the inter-war Communist culture in jail. Obviously you've taken to not discussing anything at all on the appropriate article talk page but have decided to frame your content dispute as an accusation of antisemitic "yet more Jew baiting", demonstrating you have no intention of arriving at any consensus, that is, rather than arrive at editorial consensus, you prefer to brow-beat, denigrate, oh, and best of all, demonize, editors who disagree with your edits. —PētersV (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope you can see the difference between a book "discussing the ethnic composition of jailed Communists and of the inter-war Communist culture in jail" and an encyclopedia biography. The Jewish ethnicity of these Polish communists is notable only in a specific discussion/article about the persecution of Jewish officials by Polish antisemites, or if their persecution as Jews were their main notability [[e.g., Leo Frank.. In the absence of such a specific discussion, the ethnicity is not notable, except to those who for their own odd reasons feel the need to point out their Jewishness (bad commie = Jew). In other words, just like Piotrus' bizarre claim that a particular commonplace historical fact was "Jewish historiography" [sic], it is indeed Jew baiting (wasn;t there another group of antisemites who liked to point out "Jew sciences"? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia biography? The article is about Żydokomuna, no? The manifestation of "Jewish communism" (one doesn't need to know Polish to translate it) in Poland? That makes ethnic background notable, especially as cited sources use words like "paranoia." As for your other contentions, since numerous ethnic groups populated the ranks of Poland's Communists, are you suggesting per "(bad commie = Jew)" in other words that there is a community of editors/people who believe that non-Jews constituted "good commies"? I really don't know why I'm bothering, you've already proven you only hear what you want to hear. Feel free to have the last word. —PētersV (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now pay attention. We are discussing two articles. This article is a biography, and as discussed above, Piotrus, in violation of the Manual of Style for biographies, wants to make sure everyone knows Romanski was a communist JEW. And zydokomuna doesn't translate to the innocuous "Jewish communism," but as a slur, closer to "Yid communism." The other issue is that Piotrus wants to let readers know that the commonplace scholarly consensus that there was a "strong tradition of anti-Semitism" in Poland from which the antisemitic Zydokomuna myth found its support is in fact a view of "Jewish historiography" rather than general history of the region. In other words, Piotrus wants this encyclopedia to claim that the accepted scholarly view on the extent of Polish antisemitism is really the "Jewish" version. More Jew baiting crap (thankfully now removed from the artcile.)

Sorry though that you seem to have gotten yourself caught up in Piotrus' downfall as an admin. You really should step back a bit and see the extent that he has rapidly lost all credibility within the admin community, and much of Wiki at large. Look at his Arb. The only defenders he has (loud as they may be) are only the very small group of editors who he swears ARE NOT A CABAL, and who write over and over the same hollow, formulaic praises ("Piotrus is great, his enemies are evil".) It's a bit sad, actually. He had the opportunity to change once it became obvious to everyone but himself and his handful of followers that he was in trouble. That Wikipedia ultimately wouldn't stand for his abuses, his dishonest tactics, and his incessant crying wolf about all the "enemies" plotting against him (how many times is my name mentioned in there--and I wasn't even a party to the arb and only commented when my name was brought up.) And the community is no longer going to stand for the Jew baiting whitewashing of antisemitism that he has incessantly used bullying tactics, and transparent team recruiting efforts (such as the one he manipulated you into joining), to tarnish this encyclopedia with. He can rail against me all he wants, and try to blame his troubles on me, but in the real world, adults take responsibility for their mistakes and learn from them. I suppose he and Greg in particular are so blinded by a hatred of me that they cant see the writing on the wall (this wont turn out well for Greg either). And why the intense hatred? Simply because I said no, you cannot use Wikipedia to propagate anti-semitic victim blaming nonsense. Piotrus had the option every step of the way to join the 21st century and give up his archaic neo-zydokomuna views (or at least keep those views out of Wikipedia--he can hold whatever views he wants) but instead he has late blind hatred get the better of him. It won't end well. But I tried to warn him several times about that, but he just hardened. I have a clear conscience, and most importantly, a half dozen or more articles are now free of at least the bulk of antisemitic nonsense that was there before (and that is because the community supported my editing efforts every single time--unless of course you want to believe Piotrus' portrayal of me as some all powerful monster single handedly destroying Wikipedia. Sorry, but thats just another myth. the proof is in the pudding, and my editing efforts on a dozen articles have stood up entirely, despite Piotrus' belligerent, nasty and vicious campaign against me (which is really against what I represent to him--a challenge to his antiquated and offensive worldview). So he's on his own. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lied about the last word. No one is propagating "antisemitic victim blaming" nonsense. As for hatred, you put it into the mouths of others. For someone who champions against labels, you use them far too freely. Consider that. PētersV (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's entirely up to you if you want to see reality or not. It's not that complicated, but I suppose you are too emotionally involved to be able to see clearly. Let me make it simple. Piotrus has launched a months long, vicious, unprincipled, uncivil war against me because he has to. Why? Because he cannot get his way through cooperative, civil editing. Because his Jew baiting versions of articles have, one by one, been corrected, and he can do nothing to stop it, becuase other editors have stood up to his tactics. Read the talk page of Zydokomuna. It's embarrasing how his "arguments" get torn to pieces by editors, his underhanded tactics get exposed so easily. He, of course, ha a right to choose to continue to act blinded by anger. You have a choice whether or not to follow him, even as he manipulates you for his lost cause (unless of course you prefer to be led by the nose, and told when and where to post (and on behalf of whom? Not you!). You are all adults. I can only point it out for you. The rest is up to you. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Emotionally involved..." Perhaps you'll review some of the words you've put in my mouth. You have a lot of growing up to do before you're in a position to lecture others on being adult. I've never run into anyone on WP more prepared or eager than you to misrepresent the statements of others. I'll be taking this page off my watchlist. —PētersV (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you've never run into anyone on WP more prepared or eager than you to misrepresent the statements of others, you say? Well hey, take a look at this one by one of Piotrus' fiercest allies. It's classic! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus is worried the "Jewish POV" is taking over an article

Oh dear. "Jewish historiography is given undue weight in one version of this article," he sez. (hmmm, how many versions are there?) And then he doctors the page to make it look like prexisting comments are rebuttals to his statement! I guess one has to use whatever tactic it takes when those Jews are trying to take over articles. the article is currently copiously sourced with reliable sources. Yet Piotrus thinks there is problem that needs a solution: "Solution: the article should be written from the neutral POV, not any particular (Jewish or otherwise) POV." Well, there ya go. Never thought I'd see admins on Wikipedia arguing for a solution to a Jewish problem here! And what a thoughtful, senstive time to ask for input on an article about antisemitism--in the middle of Yom Kippur! Well hey, that tactic almost worked once before. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Makow

Ugh. I can't believe I'm actually in a conflict over this... let's stick with person. Anyway, what kind of citations were you looking for? Would Google books be enough? I'm certainly not trying to legitimize his works, but it seems a glaring omission to leave them out of his article (if it's kept). A ni Mate 05:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An independent source indicating notability. Referencing the books themsleves, ot their websites, gives no indication of notability. Googlebooks isn't a source, it's a site that carries sources, not all of them reliable. Which one did you have in mind? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must the books be notable outside of his biography? I'm certainly not trying to write articles on either of the books, but as a part of Makow's biography they at least deserve a mention. I do still think they should be mentioned in the article, though I'm feeling less passionate about things since the last reversion of the article by someone you're in conflict with. For the record, I've been dealing with an editor for months on articles related to Jasenovac concentration camp and Magnum Crimen (among other articles) who has stated that first hand accounts of Serbs and Jews shouldn't be allowed in the articles. I get it. A ni Mate 06:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the reversion by Piotrus, he is simply stalking me (I doubt if he had ever heard the name Makow before 5 minutes ago). I don't know if your other examples are comparable (they arent bios) and I'd be happy to look into them on their own merits. For Makow, I think a book, or a notable publication (newspaper, magazine, journal) that indicates Makow's books/views to be notable should suffice. Eg, of the form "the London Times Book Review has described Makow's books as juicy, and warm to the touch,"[ref] There are zillions of self published/fringe books out there (some rather good) but are they notable? being present on google books doesnt indicate notability in and of itself. I'll leave it in (it's not a big deal to me either) and let you have all the time you want to find some good sources (and Piotrus wants me to revert, so of course I must do the opposite of what he wants--it's a law of nature :)) Cheers and happy hunting. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 06:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What?!? I thought he was a fellow Makow fan! </sarcasm> As for sourcing the books... does it matter if they aren't notable outside of his biography? Isn't it enough to state that he wrote them and here is their ISBN? Blergh. I'm going to work on something pleasant like gout or [[insert something unpleasant]]. A ni Mate 06:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:My name

Acknowledged.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for incivility and personal attacks. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sandstein 21:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your e-mail, I do not see what the various accusations that you raise against other editors have to do with your block. As the edits in question were made in an arbitration forum, I assume the arbitrators will take them into account in their decision. Sandstein 16:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the outrageous comment I responded to with my edit (which was made against a group of editors, not just myself.) The fact that that comment receives no action, while my response to such vile maliciousness warrants a block, is just ridiculous and bizarre. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your second long e-mail, I decline to involve myself in the content dispute about the history of Jews in Poland, of which I know nothing. Given that your conflict with Piotrus and other editors is already at arbitration, you should raise any valid concerns over their editing there. I am disappointed that you do not address your own conduct at all, instead preferring it to excuse it with the alleged disruption of others. Even if their conduct is indeed disruptive, this does not justify disruptive conduct by you in the least. Sandstein 13:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, as I have already said, I agree that Poeticbent's edit was also disruptive. But that does not justify your disruption. Sandstein 13:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's a dispute "of which I know nothing" is an odd response to an email in which the intent was to familiarize you with a dispute in which you chose to involve yourself in a partisan manner. So I either did an incompetent job in my "long email" effort to have you "know something" about the dispute, or you chose not to read it, which is fine. And yes, you have said that the other editor's edit was also disruptive. Yet you chose to block only one, without even a word said to the other editor, hence implying tacit approval for hate filled rants such as this, and an implicit message that responding to such hateful rants will earn one a two-day block. Not sure I get the logic. I would like an explanation. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the history I know nothing about, and the dispute I care nothing about. And I do not condone rants just because I do not block all ranters. Responding to hateful rants will not get you blocked, but responding with more hateful rants may. I find it useless to continue this discussion as long as you decline to critically examine your own conduct. But, as always, you are free to make an unblock request. Sandstein 15:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed examined my conduct, which as I have said repeatedly was in response to incessant, unrelenting hateful rants directed at me throughout that Arb. The fact tht you would make a blatantly partisan block in a dispute you almost proudly admit you both know nothing about and care nothing about leads me to feel that you perhaps should (as others have suggested) critically examine your own conduct on this matter. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodlesthecat, very few people are ever willing to say "I made a mistake", and I think that such a statement will not be forthcoming from Sandstein. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, if you think the other editor was disruptive and made personal attacks, couldn't you post a message to that effect on his talk page? That would help the perception of injustice here. Novickas (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

In an audit of current featured articles, I noticed that the above named article was missing its featured article star. It appears that you removed it while deleting a duplicate external link nearly a month ago. I have re-added the featured article star; please be careful. Maralia (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The art and science of canvassing

[21] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice day after you distroyed mine

Look, cross out from my words whatever you want to croos out. I wish I would have never interacted with you in the first place. You have such a accute sence how to hurt people. :( Think of the feelings you inflict on others around you. :( For what it is worth, I shared a personal oppinion. I did not claim to hold the truth. Have a nice day. Dc76\^talk 19:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You spend 24 hours posting lies about me and then you post this. Priceless. Gee, I feel so guilty! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want from me now? Isn't it enough that you ruined my day? Can we disengage now, please. I would really appreciate. I don't have time to spend all day on WP. Dc76\^talk 20:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said that to "use allegations of anti-Semitism, and accusations of "troll", "bigot", "sleaze" directed at other users, and especially at entire nations" would be an outrageous thing. I did not say that you called entire nations anti-Semite! For the nth time, you DID NOT say such a thing. The fact that you are so insistent that I somehow accused you of saying such a thing is what gave me the impression that you might want to "link you [me] with antisemitism." Impressions can be wrong. Why didn't you say simply "You misunderstood. I don't want to link you with antisemitism." I would have immediately replied "Sorry, indeed i misunderstood." Right now you confused me to the point that I not longer follow what you think I misunderstood that you understood that I missunderstood, or something like that. Look, I am totally confused now. I refractor everything I said to you. I am really sorry. Are you satsflied now? Dc76\^talk 21:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am really busy now. can we please call this off. Big-big please. Dc76\^talk 21:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working together to fix the article in question

Listen, Boodlesthecat (can I call you Boodles, or Boo, or Mr. Cat?) -- I have to go lay wires for a couple of hours and I won't be online. If you want to work with me in fixing that thorny article, here's what I will ask: Go through the draft of the article (and, yes, it is a draft) and point out every problem you find. I will then take your list, return to the draft, and correct every error that is cited. How does that sound? Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[reply on your page] Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-edited the lead and removed the photo -- your points were well taken. Let me know where to proceed. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will go back to the Paulsson text to reconfirm this is correct when I am able to devote proper time to researching the subject (I am just taking a break at the moment from a construction project). Please continue with your editorial suggestions. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 2 weeks for violation of your editing restrictions. As seen here you remove Piotrus’s addition of a tag, then later restore the whole paragraph in question after Poeticbent removed it. To contest this block, as always place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 22:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boodles. It's obvious the block was technically erroneous, but people are concerned about your edit-warring regardless. Can you commit to abiding strictly by the 1RR rule in the future? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will. It was my understanding that I was editing the article fully within the 1RR guidelines when I restored the relevant, well sourced material removed without discussion by Poeticbent. My efforts on that article, as the history shows, were to bring to light that the original version of the article was a massive WP:COPYVIO, which was opposed by both Piotrus and by (rather rudely) by Poeticbent, although the fact that there were serious COPYVIO issues was confirmed by outside reviewers, including Monnriddengirl, who put substantial effort into correcting the article. Once a revised version was put up, editors began making adjustments. I added a fully sourced section by reliable sources relevant to the subject, which was removed by Poeticbent, showing up after withdrawing for a few days once the COPYVIO was confirmed against his loud protests and denials of what turned out to be, after examination, obvious multiple instances of plagiarism (see article talkpage). I restored his semivandalization, with no belief that I was in any way violating 1RR by making that edit, which resulted in my being blocked.

So yes, I will abide by 1RR (and truly believe I was). I recommend outside eyes on the article in question, as it seems clear that there are indeed current concerns about edit warring, for instance, here and other issues that should be watched. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unblocking you per my comments on AN/I and Tiptoety's talk page, but please be very careful regarding edit warring in the future. Thanks, Khoi khoi 02:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kambon

The second sentence was stated in a neutral way, advancing a characteristic that this person is most recognized for, by multiple secondary sources. Beyond that, the edit you removed was not by me, it was by a different user. There are long Talk Page discussions on the issue. Please discuss it there before addressing that particular change, or at least find someone else to make those edits because its turning into a long-term edit war back and forth over the same point in the article. ♠♥ Trickrick1985 ♦♣^{+2¢ :: log} 06:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deep breath

Give the dreadful "Rescue ..." article a miss for a bit. Left to their own devices, the believers will produce a travesty. Which is good on the give 'em enough rope theory. So, please, take a deep breath and nice walk in the park. Come back to it in a week or two and see what's what. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not a bad suggestion,actually. the best course will then be to work on sources. I'll help with advice with that part, though I prefer not to actually edit on this topic directly. DGG (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea. They're turning it into their usual cesspool, and it's clear that what's said on the Talk page falls on deaf ears. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... weren't you guys running around awhile ago accusing others of belonging to some cabal? What is this? Coordinating attacks for an edit-war? Retiring wounded soldiers and sending in reserves to the front? Is there any, ANY, chance that any of you are capable of assuming good faith or working constructively with editors not part of your little clique? This would be amusing if it wasn't messed up.radek (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Relax Radek. Read the article talk page, and all the effort that was made explaining policy for you, and why your edits violated policy. Is that a cabal? No, mon ami. A cabal is when an admin like Piotrus comes in and threatens to block an editor. A cabal would be Piotrus using you to trap an editor he didnt like into 3RR violations, and then running (as he has countless times) to the 3RR board (without warning you) and reporting you, and writing to other admins offline trying to get you banned. Does the talk page discussion look like that? C'mon dude, take a break and read it over--the answer is all there on the talk page, all explained for your benefit, in plain English. No dark force plotting against you. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as trying to organize a respite for warring. DGG (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, given your activity on the page I see it as you telling Boodles to 'tag' you into the ring, since he's got restrictions and all. You want a respite I'll be happy to oblige (if in fact there's warring). There's two issues that are contentious.radek (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are your ears buzzing?

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#1RR violation report

Somebody can't subtract 00:20 from 10:54. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mensa criteria has gone south of late, I suppose. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Battle

Have any thoughts on this? [22] My own view is that WP guidelines on this makes sense in some cases, but that behind it is an effort to re-engineer human nature that is futile; and, frequently, the interjection of a niceness offensive itself becomes disruptive to the editing process. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP shouldnt be used to fight those battles, and I agree that in the real world it is probably unavoidable (why would we expect WP to be different from the rest of the world?) I have little problem with people getting worked up, as lomg as it doesnt go over the edge into major personal attaks. The big obstacle, however, is not really being addressed--the lack, in many cases, of honest editing and practices. I have no problem with editors who have come in conflict with me geting angrey or having some strong feelings. What I object to--and this is the big problem--is that they often engage in dishonest editing, dishonest or underhanded tactics, etc. Fighting is fine, just fight fair. But in my experience, there's a serious and troublesome amount of mendacity that goes on. And it's generally done by those who, individually or collectively, can't get their particular points of view accepted by honest means. Just like in the real world! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, Boodlesthecat, it is possible for some editors to say, with some degree of honesty, that you have ruined the peace (stupor?) prevailing in the Polish section by turning it into a battleground. So WP:Battle becomes a wonderfully convenient tool for them to accuse you of failure to be nice, so they can go back to papering over the truth without unpleasant disruptions. Much the same frequently applies to WP:Civil. Of course you are not the only editor to have this problem. There are others. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we can;t really call an article that, e.g., blames Jews for anti-semitsm they have suffered "peaceful", any more than we would consider an article that blamed Poles for the German and Soviet invasions as "peaceful." Although ignorance is bliss, so maybe we could say they were "blissful." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you to be honest. You select Polish crimes agaisnt Jews, ignoring the context, and you pretend to be neutral. It's the way some Polish antisemites act - selecting facts, ignoring the context. You cooperate sometimes with German, Lithuanian and Russian nationalist against Poles. Are you sure that your allies are honest? Xx236 (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gee, please forgive my rude dishonesty! Precisely what "context" am I ignoring when I am "selecting Polish crimes against Jews?" And where exactly do I "cooperate" with anybody "against Poles?" I edit Wikipedia, which has apparently brought down on me the obsessive wrath of a particular admin and editors he "cooperates" with that has been unending and uncivil and abusive from half a year ago right up until the present. But really, what "context" have I, in my pretenses to neutrality, omitted in accounts of murders of Polish Jews? I'm curious. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodlesthecat, I started this thread [23], in the hope of generating some interest in solving the difficulties of editing disputed articles, often against the resistance of opposing editors claiming "consensus". If you think the effort is of any interest your participation would be appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My changes on Polish Righteous

Hi Boodlestecat, I made small adjustments to your recent addition combining two sentence into one and changing "700" to "several hundreds": Sounds like this now: "Estimates of the number of Poles who were killed for aiding Jews range from several hundreds to tens of thousands with 704 of whom are recognized as the Righteous" Hope it is o.k. with you. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Actually, I think the part about the Righteous needs to be a separate sentence: "704 Poles are among the Righteous." The reason being, many of the Polish Righteous survived (the honor is given to those who risked their lives, but not necessarily died). It now sounds like all 704 were killed, which isn't true. Many lived long lives; some are probably still alive. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not look into the source, I thought that 704 of 6066 Polish Righteous where killed for helping and recognized after. Please adjust.--Jacurek (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... oh I know what you mean now... maybe you or somebody can adjust that. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look for some information. It's confusing because 704 is one figure that has been cited for total number of Poles murdered by the Nazis for helping Jews--however, it's not clear if all of these are among the 6000 Polish Righteous. We know for sure the total number of Righteous, that's well documented. We don't know the total number of Poles who were murdered for helping. We might be able to find out how many of the 6,000 were murdered. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sailer

What counts as a reliable source for the Steve Sailer article? Is anything that he writes on his blog allowable? Can we put in things like "Steve Sailer says on his blog that ..." followed by whatever? Because there is a lot of info that could go here, including the fact that he's adopted, which was on this page until recently, but although I think it's highly unlikely he'd lie about that, I don't know if his blog would be considered a trusted source. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

Slavery is in the Jewish scriptures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;

Should Alden Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
Alden Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
Greg park avenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
Should Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.
Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
Relata_refero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world disputes, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve any of the national, ethnic, historical, or cultural disputes that exists among the nations and peoples of Eastern Europe or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.
Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Group X and who finds himself or herself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Group X and Group Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Group X.
Administrators who utilize the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (or other IRC channels in which Wikipedia-related matters are discussed) are reminded that while the #admins channel has legitimate purposes, they should bear in mind whenever using it:

(A) That discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes almost all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution;

(B) That the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly deprecated, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing blatant or pagemove vandalism or ongoing serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard; and

(C) That even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.

Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process.
Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.
Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish guides to presenting evidence and using the workshop page.

Please see the above link to read the full case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that I've blocked this account for 1 year as enforcement of the above remedy. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Boodlesthecat, Merry Christmas!

Boodlesthecat,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk)

Welcome back

Welcome back. I hope you're well-rested from your Wikibreak.

Editing at the articles concerning Jewish-Polish history has been collegial during your absence, and we'd like to keep it that way. Please try to avoid edit-warring. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Boodlesthecat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures

I have been noticing recently that your signatures have been modified recently. The modification you have done has removed the timestamp portion making it very hard for people to date your comments/replies on talk pages. Could you possibly fix that? ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also want to add that timestamps are so essentially to functional, good-faith discourse that WP:SIGPROB states removing or modifying timestamps can result in being blocked. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't been on WP for a long time and a bit rusty. Will make sure there are timestamps. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement Notice

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Boodlesthecat. Thank you. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BATTLEGROUND

Hi Boodlesthecat, I hope you're doing well. Our discussions at Talk:Wi Spa controversy seem to be devolving. Your past few responses make it seem like you have a conduct concern about me. If you'd like to talk that out here or at my talk page, I'd be happy to, while keeping our content discussion at the article talk page. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we should be able to talk through the issues without assumptions of bad faith. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I feel you are avoiding answering what seems to be pretty direct concerns about deleting sourced, relevant material. I think my explanations on the article talk page are pretty clear, and repeated a number of times. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing the "direct concerns" you mention. I felt that I was directly addressing your points and citing policy/guideline reasons. If there's a specific question I haven't answered, I'll be glad to do so at the article talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefangledfeathers (talk • contribs) 00:20, September 13, 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Hi--Everything is on the talk page sections of the article. We can keep the discussion there, and I'm happy to clarify any points there. No need to do it here, and I don't think disagreements are cause for alarm. If I say I think something is, eg, POV pushing, that's all it is. Unlike another editor, who felt disagreement meant she had to quietly file an extended report to "authorities" seeking sanctions against me without even mentioning that intent to me, I have no intention of doing that (Rfc would be the way to go when at an impasse, rather than childish gaming of the system). I'm elderly and disabled, and can quite handle adult disagreements. I only ask that editors be honest in their comments. I have been advised by admins over the years that too many editors prefer to "game" the system rather than have honest dialog (eg, trick "opponents" into violations, compiling time wasting "cases" against editors they disagree with as a form of harassment, etc). Thanks! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Wi Spa controversy) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See further comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Boodlesthecat. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boodlesthecat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block is completely one sided.

I refer anyone to the talk pages, and every one of my edits, which are all well sourced factual, salient edits to the article and in some instances correcting clear attempts to "spin" the article by providing neutral tones. I refer anyone to the extensive discussions I've initiated on the talk page, where I have made similarly fact based arguments for any changes, and have never forced through changes.Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block is valid as you clearly edit warred and violated 3RR. What others do is not relevant to your block, see WP:NOTTHEM. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For the ease of any reviewing admin, these were the edits that led me to decide to block:

19:57, 12 September 2021‎, Boodlesthecat: Addition of suspect admitting being in a pool with the complainant to "Allegations of hoax" section
- 20:53, 12 September 2021‎, Gwennie-nyan: removed, with summary asking for discussion and pointing to a section on the talk page
- 21:17, 12 September 2021‎, Boodlesthecat: revert 1, restored the content with some changes to address part of Gwennie-nyan's comment
- 21:23, 12 September 2021‎, Abbyjjjj96: removed section after moving it to the "Criminal charges" section
- 21:38, 12 September 2021‎, Boodlesthecat: revert 2, readded content to "Allegations of hoax"
- 21:52, 12 September 2021‎, Colin M: undid previous, with summary about SYNTH

00:18, 13 September 2021‎, Boodlesthecat: adds a spokesperson statement from the LAPD. This may itself have been a revert, given the summary "restored info that had been disappeared", though I'm not seeing any sign of this ever being in the page, so I haven't counted it as one.
- 00:23, 13 September 2021‎, Colin M: reverts, with question about "identity" vs. "gender identity"
- 00:37, 13 September 2021‎, Boodlesthecat: revert 3

21:22, 12 September 2021, Abbyjjjj96: among other things, adds "and an arrest warrant was issued"
- 00:55, 13 September 2021‎, Gwennie-nyan: removes statement about arrest warrant being issued, saying it is superfluous
- 15:28, 13 September 2021‎, Boodlesthecat: revert 4

Four reverts within 24-hours is a violation of WP:3RR, a bright-line rule on edit warring. Your bad-faith accusations that other editors were trying to "bait" you into edit warring (which at least one editor has explained quite reasonably: [24]) hold no water—no one forced you to make edits to the page rather than discussing on the talk page to achieve consensus. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare--please review the histories. If there's a sentence that en editor says "the word "X" in the sentence is problematic," and, instead of removing the word "X" deletes the whole sentence; if I put it back with the concern addressed by removing "X", I am not reverting, and am correcting per the concern. Read the histories. I suspect some of these edits are indeed efforts to bait me into being accused of reverting. I've been on Wiki long enough to have witnessed all sorts of gaming by individuals alone or in concert with other editors to know it's long been rampant, and which over the years many admins have confirmed. To quote an admin quite recently discussing this article with me, "It's a bit of a farce with people on both sides knowing full well that they are playing a game trying to out-wait their opponents."

Your statement that my concern about edit warring doesn't "hold water," well, doesn't hold water. You say the editor "explained quite reasonably" what they had done; why don't you review their edit carefully. The editor says The sources don't say this. Did you mean to write "gender identity" rather than "identity"? And yes, I did indeed have a typo, and I meant to write, per the reference, "Gender identity" rather than "identity." Since that was the stated problem with the copy, I corrected it, so it resolved the editors stated concern. This is "fixing" a problem that was pointed out, not "reverting." Sio when editors pull this routine (more than once on this article), you tell me whether it's "bad faith" or not to worry that they are trying to "bait" other editors (and I explained that when making the edits, so it was clear in real time that I was fixing, per concerns, not reverting.

Details and facts are important, in articles, and when you are deciding on sanctioning editors. I would appreciate if these details and facts were paid attention to, rather than taking a cursory look and swinging a block hammer. I've discussed all of my concerns on the talk page, and if you actually review the talk page, you will see that I as key in sparking discussions which actually clarified and resolved some issues. So forgive me if I don't appreciate this sort of response, and forgive me if I call BS on an article creator who can spend hours quietly compiling a vindictive complaint against me but not spend 2 minutes attempting to discuss the possibility of their bringing a complaint on my talk page and attempting to find a solution with how to proceed with editing what they seem to consider their article. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the history quite closely, and I stand by the block. You are of course welcome to try another unblock appeal. As for AE, there is no requirement that an individual notify you prior to filing an AE report, so while it is fine for you to wish they had, it is not something that you can reasonably expect of another editor. With respect to your continued suggestions that other editors are maliciously baiting you into reverting, it is easy to avoid being baited: don't revert, and instead discuss your suggested changes on the talk page until there is agreement. Note that this does not mean "revert and then also leave a note on the talk page" (as here: [25], [26]).

It is concerning to me, in the context of the broader discussion at AE, that you apparently see no issues with your conduct, and even seem to be continuing to escalate the battleground behavior with bad faith and aspersions against the AE filer, against ColinM, and now against an uninvolved admin who weighed in at the AE request, but I will leave further conversation to AE since that is the appropriate place for it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare LOL, "bad faith and aspersions," isn't that exactly what filing an underhanded harassing complaint without any warning is? Note also, the first admin who responded had some excellent suggestions for fixing the article, which the AE filer has seemingly ignored and I was the only one who shared those suggestions, and discussed implementing them, on the article talk page. Once again, as I noted years ago in response to the harassment and sanctions I faced for fighting blatant antisemitism on WP, you're welcome :) Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you wouldn't jump so quickly to assumptions of bad faith. I wasn't trying to entrap you into a 3rr situation, and now that I've seen how it played out with this ban, I actually feel a little bad about the revert. If I could go back in time, I probably would have just pinged you on the article talk page rather than reverting. I rarely edit high-traffic articles, so 3rr was not really on my mind, and I had forgotten how procrustean that rule could be. It's a moot point now, but FWIW I basically agree with you that some of these edits only very loosely fit the definition of a "revert". (And applying the same loose interpretation, I think it's very likely that Gwennie-nyan and I could also be considered to have violated 3rr over the same time period.) I'm sorry things ended the way they did with the topic ban. It seems to me like a pretty extreme outcome, but I do agree with GorillaWarfare that you've been casting a lot of accusations of bad faith, which doesn't help your case. I hope you can find other areas to productively edit in. Colin M (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic ban from all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this topic ban went into effect at 15:35, 14 September 2021 and applies to the topic of the Wi Spa controversy. That means edits such as this one at 18:50 are in violation of the topic ban: [27]. I am not sure if you didn't realize that, or if you are choosing to ignore the ban, can you clarify? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare No, didn't realize it applied to talk pages. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. all edits about, and all pages related to means all. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it; not immediately intuitive if you're not necessrily expecting to get up and read through a bunch of legalese. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage in, garbage out Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jorm, I have no idea who you are and have never had a single interaction with you, but I was discussing this with @GorillaWarfare. So why exactly are you coming on my talk page to leave gratuitous, sarcastic, creepy insults? Boodlesthecat ^Meow?

I don't feel that comment was appropriate, Jorm and would appreciate if you would retract it. It's important we AGF, and I can understand that for those not very well-versed, it can seem as if 'pages' implies the actual articles and not the talk portions. Boodles might also be confused given how GW's pblock prevented them from editing the page but not talk page interaction.

However, Boodlesthecat, I do want to mention that user pages and talk pages are public and, provided they have been created, it's commonplace for them to get edited by anyone who desires to (within the limits of certain ibans and restrictions). I agree his comment was a bit pointed, but I think it's a little bit hyperbolic to refer to it as "creepy" and "gratuitous". Sarcastic, perhaps, but we don't have to lay on all the adjectives, and we should be careful to avoid personal attacks and aspersions. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Gwennie-nyan, so someone unknown to me who has no connection to this discussion comes on my talk page and leaves a creepy stalker like insult, and you feel this is an opportunity to lecture ``me`` about civility? The front of my house is also "public", so I should consider it OK and "commonplace" for "anyone who desires to" to walk up to my house and insult me? Should I expect to have to be abused by random unknown people out of the blue because you had what some have considered an overblown complaint against me simply because I questioned your article? Is that your position? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AE Appeal Declined

Hello, I have closed your appeal of your arbitration enforcement sanction as declined. This has been logged at the AE log. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colfax massacre

Ralph Nader Presidential Elections

newspaper article

January 2008

newspaper article follow-up

trying again

Matt Gonzalez

Hi and re Nader article

Nader Elections

Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns

Evola and the Jews

Added to ANI Noticeboard

Have you seen this?

confirmed

sorry for the confusion

FYI use of "controversy", "controversial"

Incivility, goading and personal attacks

Griot deliberately misrepresenting me on his talk page

The Spanish Inquisition

Live long and prosper

bad grammar

Warning for WP:Civil violation

February 2008

Elias

Hi there

Archive

Now you're talking!

Anti-semitic editor

AN/i

RE: Jewish lobby talk

Blocked for 24 hours.

Need some clarification

My opinion, in case you care

Here's an interesting experiment...

Reality check

and the best part is....

Tawana Brawley

48 hour block.

Tawana Brawley

Bleep

Allegation of Duke being a Neo-Nazi

3RR

Blocked 24 hours

The CAMERA complaint at WP:COIN needs more specifics

The CAMERA COI was dealt with efficiently, and the rest of it was swept to archive

CAMERA

Can I ask for your help...

Hey, wanna go in halves on this stub?

Notification of review

Apologies

Jewish disabilities

Lederer, Helen

Proposed move

Thanks for the five books.

3RR

Manners

RfC

No personal attacks, please!

Answer

Harassment

May 2008

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[4] made on May 21 2008 to Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz

Engel Article

Wikipedia's Jew Hater Infestation

Reverts

"Fear" article

Żydokomuna reference in history of Jews in Poland

Sorry, not anti-semitism related :-P... but don't you think this should have its own article?

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

Haaretz

tags make no sense--please discuss on talk page and suggest improvements

Re: Deleting reliably sourced information and instigating edit wars.

Fear

Blocked for 24 hours

Barnstar

Mediation

Full Protection

Re: Impartial Mediation

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter