User talk:Jason from nyc/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

DYK for 2014 NYPD officer killings

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

An article which you once supported has come up for deletion review. As it was of interest to you before, you may wish to weigh in again. Pax 18:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you have participated earlier in similar discussion, notification on India noticeboard: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Nomination_for_deletion_of_Template:Violence_against_Muslims_in_India. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

About arabslavetrade.org in Arab slave trade

Hi, I see that you had participated in a discussion about the reliability of the page. We are discussing the issue again, please, if you do not mind, join the discussion. Thanks in advance. Rupert loup (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree

I agree with your recent edit, and left word on the editor's talk page. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Pamela Geller

Jason - I agree that the Atlas Shrugged section is a bit of a mess, with much undue weight. Would you give me a little time to make a major revision to it and clean it up, and then we both can work from that? I think we can work more efficiently without editing over each other. guanxi (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Probably the last two paragraphs should be moved to Views, but I'll let someone else worry about that. At least, it's much tighter, and much extraneous material and many overly long descriptions are gone. Notice that I also focused more on saying she 'published' statements, since she says some were submitted by readers; we have no way of verifying it, but no matter who wrote them she published them. I'm sure we won't agree on every change, but hopefully you will find it much improved. guanxi (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This re-edit of this section (her blog) is a great improvement. I would have made a distinction between her views and one-off publications of other's writings that are put forth for her readers consideration. There is no evidence that they became her views and the blog, as she says, is her thinking out loud. But I'll leave it for others to consider. I wouldn't move anything to the views section since the blog is thoughts that may or may not be her settled views. Let's leave it as it is for now. Thanks, guanxi, for the good work. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome; thanks for the kind words.guanxi (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've left some comments on the Talk:Pamela Geller regarding your edits. Please discuss so we can come to an agreement. Thanks.Shabeki (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Due to your violation of 1RR on Margret Sanger

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is due to your reversion of three separate edits on the Margret Sanger page. Chrononem ☎ 12:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect summary

Your summary on Margret Sanger looked like it was made to hide that you were reverting some of the work of me and other editors; This could be considered disruptive editing. If you don't want to get reported you've got to stop, I'd prefer we get along but I can't let you schmutz up your summeries. That's underhanded and bad. Schwarzschild Point • 13:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologize. In my haste early this morning I didn't fully reflect the changes I made in the summary. It was a revert combined with a move of two paragraphs from Controversies to the main section. I regret any confusion that this may caused. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources in Spencer's book

Followed your example for wp:identifying reliable sources. see my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiceAdam (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Thank you for your reminder. I have added additional info on her talk page. I request of you to also try to be neutral and fair to Americans. Let's see what other editors have to say my entry on her talk page and we will go with the consensus. NiceAdam (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.NiceAdam (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You recently accused me of canvassing. There have been couple of editors who have left notification or alerted me. I am simply asking them only for clarification and to be even handed. I need specific reasons for undoing my edits.--NiceAdam (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades)

I have reverted you edits to The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades). Please do not add un-referenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades). Thank you --EddEnter (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Hi. I have come across some of your edit history, and it appears that you are opposed to the term Islamophobia on all grounds, and that you currently lean towards the Counterjihad movement. And that's understandable. However, I do not think you have a strong case here on Wiki for such views. Islamophobia as a term is well established in the academic literature, and you will have a very hard time arguing otherwise. That said, I find it strange that you would dismiss Islamophobia in the face of overwhelming consensus for its usage but seem fine with promoting much less known terms like Islamophobia-phobia. I ask you to re-consider your inclusion of extremist views in the articles on Islam. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an explicit attack on my good faith. I have contributed much to the Islamophobia article several years back to make it stronger. I added several references and used others more extensively. It been accepted by the consensus of editors regardless of their personal views as we here at Wikipedia look for reliable sources, not personal point of view. I don't know or care about your views. I do care about well-sourced information making into Wikipedia so that we all can have access to the literature. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Re Sanger

Yes, the section is about how she worked with the black community. It is not about her views on African-American relations. Motsebboh (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want a discussion about moving that section from views to her life chronology, initiate that in the talk page of her biography. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you have the right idea here; I'll probably just retitle and move it, and see if there are any objections. Motsebboh (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jason from nyc. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

AFD on Nina Rosenwald

I looked at the history of Talk:Nina Rosenwald -- and found no input from you.

So, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Rosenwald, you assert that the normal editorial process failed to make the article comply with NPOV, but you never weighed in there, as to what you think is required to make the article comply with NPOV.

In future, I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to stop, and not make assertions in AFD fora that the normal editorial process has failed to make an article comply with NPOV, when the record shows you never voiced your concerns on the article's talk page.

Frankly, I don't see the bias you claim exists, and am extremely disappointed in you for not making more of an effort to explain yourself. Geo Swan (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Geo Swan, with all due respect, I felt that other people have made these points over the years. In most cases, editors have asked others to be patient and wait for sources. The sources never came. I have found a few sources myself and made minor edits in the past. I enjoy working with and discussing with editors proposed changes. I often do too much talking in the talk pages. This is one case I felt others already covered the subject.

Let me ask you honestly, do you think there would be an article without the highly polemical attack pieces by her partisan opponents, such as Mr. Blumenthal? Take out his article and what do you have but (1) info from her supplied bio pages (2) info about her famous ancestors (3) passing references such as the Moynihan reference that mentions her as one of four people who worked on his finance committee. The BLP really reads like Blumenthal's smear piece gussied-up with 1, 2, & 3 and thus runs counter to the warning (in WP:BLP) against articles that exist "primarily to disparage the subject". I honestly believe this is a serious BLP consideration. That it is presented as an attributed source and not in Wikipedia's voice doesn't allay my concern. Aren't you worried about that? Or am I being oversensitive about possible attacks on living persons? Jason from nyc (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Deletion is a very last resort option to be used when good faith attempts to compromise on a version everyone agrees is neutral fail. Everyone... that includes you.

I don't see a talk page with frustrated people waiting for lazy claimants to provide better references. Is that really what you see?

What I see is a talk page where some concerns were raised, and those concerns got some civil replies. But, those concerns were not specific enough for an uninvolved third party to come along later, and be one hundred percent sure whether or not the concerned contributors were satisfied by subsequent edits. None of them said "I am concerned that this particular passage shows bias". And you, in your comments at the AFD, have been similarly unhelpfully vague.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Blumenthal article does provide almost all the details found in the article... Unless you can explain why The Nation is not an RS, I think it should still be used, by contributors who have born in mind all the guidance about how to write from a neutral point of view, in our policies and wikidocuments. You call it a "smear piece". That is irrelevant, provided it is summarized, paraphrased or quoted by contributors who have born in mind all the guidance about how to write from a neutral point of view, in our policies and wikidocuments.

FWIW, I am not convinced the article is a "smear piece". I wonder what you mean by that. Do you have reason to doubt the factual accuracy of The Nation article?

Are you acknowledging that she did fund kooks, but believe that is balanced by her funding organizations across the political spectrum, including those that helped sponsor a rapproachment between moderate jewish and muslim people? Okay, where are the RS that document her sponsorship of moderates? You don't balance an article by censoring articles you disagree with. You balance it by finding articles with a different interpretation, and summarize, paraphrase or quote them bearing in mind all the guidance about how to write from a neutral point of view, in our policies and wikidocuments.

In answer to your question, above, yes, I am in no doubt that if The Nation article had never been written, or was proscribed by one of our policies, there would be sufficient other RS for Ms Rosenwald to measure up to our notability inclusion criteria.

You ask if I think you look like someone who is being "overly sensitive to about possible attacks on living persons?" Okay. You asked. AGF compels me to ignore the surface impression your nomination and comments give. But, since you asked, the surface impression is that you may be a partisan defender of Ms Rosenwald.

In September 2005, before I had been on the wikipedia for a year, I crossed paths with an opinionated contributor with a big posse of fans. I had just started working on articles related to Guantanamo. I had less than 2000 edits under my belt. And I had not only never participated in an AFD, I had never even heard of an AFD. Four Guantanamo-related articles I had just started were nominated for deletion on a single day. The nominations were woefully inadequate, at explaining their concerns. One nominator's sole explanation was "NN". What the heck did that mean?

Well, this opinionated contributor, with a big posse of fans, wrote that not only should the article in that AFD, and the other three AFD be deleted, the wikipedia should not have any articles related to Guantanamo, because they could only serve as a platform for POV America-bashing.

It was a very disturbing comment. Its surface meaning seemed to be that she thought some topics were so inherently biased, that the wikipedia couldn't cover them. I thought that was nonsense. Topics aren't biased. It is only how they are covered that can be biased. I was convinced then, and remain convinced now, twelve years later, that there is no topic, with adequate references, that good faith wikipedia contributors can’t cover in a policy compliant manner, if they give doing so enough work.

I thought she mispoke, exagerrated to make a point, that she didn’t really mean her comment the way it sounded. I responded with some questions, that I thought would give her an opportunity to step back to a more defensible position.

Wrong. She didn’t respond at all. Instead she nominated a fifth article for deletion -- an article that had been suggested in the first four AFD. I thought her nomination fell short of AGF. And, for the next several years she took pot-shots at me, for being “anti-American”, when I think I had contributed neutrally written material.

In early 2007 she had a high profile dust-up with Jimbo Wales, after, apparently sending harrassing email to a professor who had encouraged his students to contribute to the wikipedia -- contributions she didn’t like. Other people who looked at her email thought her harrassing email implied she spoke for the WMF, when she was merely a wikipedia administrator.

Well, as I said, I am sure she was wrong. Any topic with adequate references can be covered in a neutral fashion. Based on my compliance with WP:BEFORE, I think Nina Rosenwald is someone with sufficient adequate references to support a stand alone article.

Sorry, but by making a nomination for deletion, based on the article using a reference you think was a ‘’”smear piece”’’, without really explaining ‘’’’’why’’’’’ it was a ‘’”smear piece”’’, and without really trying to reach a compromise, I am concerned your underlying position in AFD is close to that contributor, from 2005, who was convinced there were topics that were ‘’”inherently biased”’’, that couldn’t be covered by the wikipedia, no matter how hard people worked to make sure their articles weren’t biased. Geo Swan (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• With regard to your own efforts to share, or fix, biases you found in the article, your first five edits to the article are plain ordinary copy editing -- not an attempt at a biasectomy.
  • Also copy editing;
  • Also copy editing;
  • Also copy editing;
  • Also copy editing;
  • Also copy editing;
  • Also copy editing;
  • Also copy editing.

This edit could be characterized as an attempt at a biasectomy; ditto, this edit. But, since you were frank with me, let me be frank. Who would ever agree these were more than mere token efforts, far short of the good faith efforts one would think you had made after reading your comments? Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

My edits were attempts to finds sources, verify sources, and reflect sources. As you show above, I provided some, noted references needed, and removed unsourced material after a protracted period when no one could provide a source. If I couldn't do more it was because there just wasn't more after a long search. There are many sources where she is merely mentioned in passing. The Moynihan book mentions Rosenwald as one of four on the finance committee. I found her name on a list of NY delegate to the 1996 Democratic Convention and added that source. Your recent edit find merely finds her name on a long list of those asking for a Libby pardon. Do you really think mentions in passing are enough for a BLP? Without the Nation article, we don't have much more. Let's remember that the issues raised in the Nation article are in the Gatestone Institute article. I'm not arguing that they aren't worthy for a Wikipedia article. I questioning their appropriateness for being the main source of a BLP where special sensitivity is needed. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I don't appreciate my good faith being questioned. My motivations are question whenever I edit BLPs and bios because of my concern with a person's reputation. I get the same suspicions when I edit Margaret Sanger and remove material from conservative sources that virtually imply she's a racist and proto-Nazi. And I do the same when left-wing magazine make insinuations and outrageous claims of being the "sugar mama of hate." Looking at your work on Gitmo, I see you and other (like User:Sherurcij ... by what way whatever happened to Sherurcij?) are understandably concerned about unwarranted insinuations and charges against others. Why aren't you concerned here? Jason from nyc (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• With regard to AGF and AAGF, I don't think I questioned your good faith. I will explicitly say I think this nomination strongly suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, and the wiki documents that guide us in how to write neutrally written articles using RS that have a point of view.

I think I addressed this concern above, and I am disappointed that your reply doesn't give any sign that you read this concern.

As I wrote above, deletion over an NPOV concern should be a very last resort, when serious attempts to reach a compromis wording have failed.

Your 12 edits were not a serious effort to address the conern you based your AFD upon. And your personal efforts to explain your concern on Talk:Nina Rosenwald? No offense, nonexistent.

The Nation article you call a "smear piece". I see nothing in it that should prevent us using it as a reference, here, or anywhere else. Maybe there are reasons why it shouldn't be used. I wrote above, several times, references with a point of view are routinely used: " provided it is summarized, paraphrased or quoted by contributors who have born in mind all the guidance about how to write from a neutral point of view, in our policies and wikidocuments." This is another point I made that you didn't address.

It seems to me you have assumed it should be obvious to everyone that The Nation article can't be used. But you didn't explain why. A decade or so I wrote an essay on arguments based on claims of obviousness -- User:Geo Swan/nothing is obvious. Well, given how you don't seem to have read my comments above, you may not bother to read my essay. So, a key observation from my experience trying to have civil discussions with people who claim their posiiton is too obvious to require explanation.

When asked to explain something too obvious to require explanation I find it pretty common that, first, they can't explain their "obvious" position; second, their reaction to the frustration they feel when they can't explain their position is pretty regularly to get angry at me. I find it doesn't matter how tactful I am, if I keep reminding them of their failure to explain themselves they pretty frequently get angry.

Did you get angry? I re-read my comments, above, to double-check that I did not accidentally challenge your good faith. I still think I did not.

I voiced my concern you have a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. The wikipedia's policies are baroque, and in a constant state of flux. No one has mastered every single wrinkle. So, voicing a concern over someone's understanding of a policy is NOT a challenge to their good faith. Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

WRT Margaret Sanger...

Margaret Sanger -- admired for being a pioneer in champion in women's reproductive health, right? You wrote: "I edit Margaret Sanger and remove material from conservative sources that virtually imply she's a racist and proto-Nazi." I have no idea what sources imply she was a racist or proto-Nazi. I do know this much loved figure took a stand that shocks people today -- she supported the involuntary sterilization of the "feeble-minded".

Reliable sources that accurately report that this iconic leader held views wildly at odds with modern sentiments should not be excised from our articles. Her position is a matter of public record. The wikipedia is not a hagiography.

As I wrote above, there are multiple wikidocuments that give guidance as to how to contribute wikipedia content, in a neutral voice, that relies on a source with a point of view.

Please don't ignore this important point yet again. Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

A review of the wild charges against Sanger are in [1] and [2]. (There is a whole article on Black genocide conspiracy theory which includes a section that talks about the unfounded charge that Sanger and those influenced by here were advocating "black genocide.") I wrote considerable sections in the BLP on Sanger's eugenics views and I'm the sole author of the section on her neo-malthusian philosophy. Look in the talk and you'll find an extensive discussion of the sources that I used. Your unsubstantiated charges that I write hagiography are grossly unfair. As an aside, I would argue that publications like National Review and the Weekly Standard, while otherwise reliable, are not on this issue. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Are you sure you aren't seeking offence were none were given?

You don't dispute that Ms Sanger supported involuntary sterilization? I know that she supported involuntary sterilization of the feeble minded.

In this document she is quoted as saying: "These measures do not touch those great masses, who through economic pressure populate the slums and there produce in their helplessness other helpless, diseased and incompetent masses, who overwhelm all that eugenics can do among those whose economic condition is better."

You write that Sanger is also accused to racist eugenics, presumably advocating the sterilization of black people, or some black people. A modern person might read the passage above as supporting the assertion Sanger supported sterilizing black people, as, today, for many modern people, the word "slum" may imply (1) a poor neighborhood; (2) occupied mainly by people of color. One hundred years ago there were plenty of poor neighborhoods, called "slums", that weren't mainly occupied by people of color.

In what you have written about Rosenwald, and in what you are writing about Sanger, am I wrong that you are advocating prohibiting using references you think are unfriendly to these two women, so that the wikipedia does not address the claims that they finance anti-muslim hate groups, or support involuntary sterilization of healthy women of color, one way or another?

If I were curious about Margaret Sanger, and I read the shocking information that (1) she supported involuntary sterilization; and (2) she thought people of color should be candidates for involuntarily sterilized, I would not want the wikipedia to suppress coverage of this issue, even if everyone working on those articles were sure the unflattering reports were lies, or misunderstandings. Rather, I think it would be best for readers if the unflattering reports were covered, and, if respectable RS had debunked them, then that too should be covered. This kind of coverage can be written in a responsible, neutral manner.

As a reader, I would respect a wikipedia article that acknowledged unflattering reports, and followed up by covering the RS that debunked those reports. That provides me, the intelligent reader, the best chance to reach my own informed conclusion.

Sometimes I have seen contributors second guess our readers. They say, "we can't include this controversial information -- because if we include it our readers might conclude X." I think this shows disrespect for our intelligent readers. If you, or I, think of ourselves as intelligent contributors, who researched the topic, and reached our own personal conclusions, I suggest it is disrespectful of us to withhold complicated details from our readers, due to fears they will reach a conclusion we don't like, a conclusion different than our own.

If we provide neutrally written, comprehensive content about a person, including information that some might consider unflattering, and our intelligent readers reach a different conclusion than the one you or I personally hold that may be because that reader is smarter than us, and sees something we didn't see. It doesn't necessarily mean they are less intelligent than us.

Could you please stop accusing me of not complying with AGF? Please recognize that your comments about Ms Sanger, and your comments about Ms Rosenwald both seem pretty clear that you think we ought to bar the use of certain RS from these articles. As I wrote above, I think this is counter-policy, but I am sure it is a good-faith mistake, on your part. I know I have said this a number of times before, and I repeat it one more time, because you still haven't acknowledged it. The wikipedia provides multiple wikidocuments to guide contributors in how to use RS with a point of view, and still contribute material written from a neutral voice. Geo Swan (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm somewhat shocked that you assume I'm suppressing reliable sources about Sanger after the links I provided. To be fair to you, I can't tell if you're merely considering a hypothetical and didn't have time to read the links. I've read a half dozen books on Sanger written over a 40 years period. I read her books and important articles. I don't know what you base your conclusion that I suppress reliable sources that push these conspiracy theories. There are no RS that push this nonsense. I assumed the relegation of conspiracy theories about Sanger to an article dedicated to such nonsense would establish common ground for further discussion. I see there is none. If you think there are reliable sources that argue that Sanger is a racist proto-Nazi, we clearly disagree on what is a reliable source. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Would Ms Rosenwald measure up to our notability criteria without The Nation article...

I think I made this point already. There is no doubt in my mind that there are plenty of references that establish Ms Rosenwald's notability, even if The Nation article didn't exist, or couldn't be used here.

I am not going to suggest its removal. I wouldn't agree to its removal, unless someone offered an explanation for its removal, beyond that it seems like a "smear piece". As I have repeated, several times, we have lots of guidance as to how to contribute policy compliant neutrally written content that relies on references written from a point of view. Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You asserted the point. You didn't make the point. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sebastian Gorka

I moved your edit about Sebastian Gorka's writing for the Gatestone Institute from the lead of the Sebastian Gorka article down into the text, chronologically under "Career", as it really wasn't summary material, and had not been covered in the text. Not that it is contested, but do you happen to know of a third-party source that supports this? --Bejnar (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The move is totally appropriate. I should have realized that. Thanks. I haven't found a third party source yet. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's somewhat infuriating but it is not clear that he still writes for Gatestone. At Gatestone it says he writes for the Hudson Institute New York which turns out to be Gatestone's previous name. I do find him at Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which says he writes for the Hudson Institute. [3]. As a matter of fact www.hudson-ny.org redirects to Gatestone. It seems that Gatestone and Hudson Institute New York (not to be confused with Hudson Institute DC) are too obscure for anyone to notice. I can't find any actual institute. It seems to be a website that prints or reprints articles. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The most recent article of his on the Gatestone website seems to be 23 June 2011. However, it also appears that his bio there has not been updated since 2011. His wife has only a single article there dating from 2009. Since the Gatestone Institute only succeeded the Hudson Institute New York in 2012, it would seems to be more appropriate to say that he wrote for the Hudson Institute of New York (now Gatestone Institute). Opinion? See also name change info at Talk:Gatestone Institute#Protected. --Bejnar (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was contemplating that as a better option. Good idea. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sir! I noticed, that You have a dispute on the talkpage of the Sebastian Gorka article - I asked an editor to give a third, impartial opinion. Please, weigh in and share Your thoughts!--Ltbuni (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Removing reliably sourced content

Please don't remove reliable sourced content like you did here.VR _talk 19:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

VR, you can't be serious. A trivial debate about whether the headline should read "orders" vs. "recommends" is not worthy of an encyclopedia and consequently WP:UNDUE as I noted in the summary. If you have a problem with this talk about it in the article's talk page. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You have totally mis charaterized the debate. If you read Snopes there were 4 false things that Gatestone said in both the headline and text. Anyway, this material has been long-standing and the onus is on you to talk first before sourced content.VR _talk 22:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I responded at the Gatestone talk page as others should be aware of our discussion. 03:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello. Given that you are considerably more skilled at structuring Wikipedia texts, and managing discussions than I am, I would appreciate your help with finding a solution in the following article. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime David A (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Work with

Hey,

You seem to be backtracking on what we achieved at Gatestone. For example, we seemed to be reaching a stable version of the wording, where we had all agreed to use Bloomberg as a source and you even had introduced material from it ("grain of truth") and users critical of Gatestone had stopped objecting to it. Then all of a sudden you backtrack, and ask for removing Bloomberg entirely as a source. I like to think that you're a reasonable guy who I can work with. So please don't just go back on the progress we've made thus far.VR _talk 06:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I started a section here: Talk:Gatestone_Institute#.22Inaccurate.22_vs_.22false.22. I'd be willing to favor your version as part of a broader compromise on the rest of the article. We can't keep reverting forever.VR _talk 06:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like Jason may have simply changed his mind based on discussions at the talk page. If so, that's not backtracking, it's careful editing. That said, I think we'd all benefit by keeping the article discussion at the article talk page instead of individual user talk pages. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Israel and apartheid analogy

Hi. A POV warrior (Seraphim System) removed a sourced paragraph. Could you please add the following opinion of a Sudanese human rights activist in the section Israel and the apartheid analogy#By others:

Sudanese human rights activist Simon Deng, writing for the Gatestone Institute, has criticized Desmond Tutu for referring to Israel as an apartheid state, stating that Arabs in Israel enjoy a variety of rights that blacks in apartheid-era South Africa did not, including the right to vote, and that Palestinians are only stopped at checkpoints to prevent attacks. Deng asks why Tutu criticizes Israel for apartheid policies it does not have, but ignores what Deng believes to be actual apartheid practices in other countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and especially his own country Sudan.

It's from the Gatestone institute. He's no less "expert" than Naomi Klein and other individuals in the 'support' section. Thank you very much.--200.82.105.203 (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment on talk

I'm not sure if you saw this comment of mine. Posted several days ago, I talk about the content I added to the article and then ask if there is anything that is incorrectly sourced. Yet today you removed that very content without responding to my comment. Please respond.VR _talk 15:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing those "talk" comments. I'll have to consider it. My last edit wasn't to create a final consensus version or even a proposal version that summarizes the source but to be a placeholder until we can reach a consensus. I thought we'd work on the talk page to reach a consensus instead of the continued alternation of the body of the article. I still don't see a consensus for any version, a somewhat distressing state of affairs. I'll have to review the talk page to get back into the debate later when I have time. (PS I saw the comment correcting the edit summary. I often notice such errors right after I hit "save changes." I hate when that happens!) Jason from nyc (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit request - Ali Khamenei (recovering important content)

Talk:Ali Khamenei#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2017 (2)--181.90.21.85 (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jason from nyc. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "inconvenient picture" by another POV warrior

Why? Because Amin al-Husseini was the most important Palestinian leader. That's why the picture is there. Could you please restore it?--Gyanfranco44 (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong DR

Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sarah_Jeong. All the best, Ikjbagl (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 any 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.

I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. Abecedare (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2019 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

NPOV-problems

Dear Jason, How are you? The last few years, I was less active on Wikipedia. The reason for this is the recent trend that editors, as one other user put it, are far too keen to rush to characterize the topic (as per what RSes may say) rather than explain what the topic is first in a neutral and impartial tone first. Now, I started a discussion on this matter at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#NPOV-problems_on_Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if you would share your opinion on this matter in the discussion. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Important 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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

––FormalDude talk 11:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The 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 2022 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) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)