User talk:Oboler/Archive 1

policy and blogs

Hi, thanks for your msg. I'm not sure what article/link was it about, but "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, anonymous websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." - although there are exceptions - plz. read more at WP:RS & WP:V. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki projects

Sorry for long delay. WikiProjects are informal - there is no regular policing, and some hot topics tend to attract all kinds of hot heads. Thanks for bringing it to my attention (although I am not a member). Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to share this picture with you

which is targeted for speedy deletion : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipeidans-for-Palestine2.gif Fascinating process. I put it up and 5 minutes later am informed it is "targeted for speedy deletion." I think I put a hangon tag on it and put up a rationale for keeping it. I don't know what is wrong with it but if you'd like to take a look, better hurry, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajudem (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

oops! too late! Juanita (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page, but that no longer exists, or at least I can't find a way to get to it. The reason it was originally nominated was arbitrary and incorrect (showing that the desire was to get rid of it more than anything else). The deletion itself cited a valid a reason. It's a little problematic when the log excludes the reason originally given for the nomination for speedy delete. Ah well, I guess there is a limit to how much history Wikipedia can store. Oboler (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This was your edit:

The image in question meets the definition: "Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary", see content guidelines: Wikipedia:Non-free_content. A similar image Google groups is here [[1]]

— Oboler (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Avi. The initial complaint was that the image was not free and breached copyright. My argument is that this was incorrect. When it was deleted however the comment said it was because it was not used any where. This is ofcourse a valid reason, but not the reason it was put on the speedy delete list. I think that's what I was saying, along with the fact that I couldn't seem to access certain info. You can obviously get to it, so either you are better at this than me, or you have additional access. :) I doubt I'll regularly need to get to the talk pages of deleted images though, so not a big deal either way. Thanks for fetching it though and sorry to have taken your time with it. (I have my own copy of the image screen captured from the Google Cache that I hosted outside Wikipedia - another solution.) Oboler (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As a sysop, I have addition access, yes. Sysops can see the history of any page or image that has not been oversighted, and many of us will supply revisions if there is a valid need for it, see Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles or just drop me a line on my talk page. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I was the one being a "schmuck" there. I am working on a proper refutation of your charges (assuming you are Dr. A. Oboler) and will not be employing such silly ad hominems. <eleland/talkedits> 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's quite alright. My user page give my full name, so that is not secret. I am either me, or I am someone trying really hard to pretend to be me over a very long period... occam's razor suggests I am probably me.

I do have a slight problem with title of that section as the research I did was not done on work time and the title does play into certain conspiracy theories. The only connection with NGO Monitor is that I noticed the page on them was being consistently editing to remove praise and add critisism and approach an admin about it. This was well before I started working for them however. Since I've been working for them I've noticed changes doing the reverse on some of the organisations we Monitor. I've raised this at a staff meeting but so far the only out come has been to note that it is a concern when people remove reference giving opinions they disagree with from Wikipedia.

Anyway when you have done your refutation please drop me a note or an e-mail... I may not get to reply until tomorrow though. Thanks for the time reviewing this. Oboler (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Rereading the Honest Reporting critique I'm not sure what's them and what's you. And I'm no longer sure if you're saying that WP is biased overall against Israel, or just pointing out that specific instances of anti-Israel bias exist on WP. The latter is inarguable. <eleland/talkedits> 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The only bits that are me are the quotes attributed to me. Admittedly there are a lot of those (but they did their own research as well as checking mine). The reason so much is quoted is that the raw data I have is very technical and hard to follow or explain. So they asked me questions which resulted in me explaining it, answers they then quoted. The quotes are either in quotation marks or in block quotes (i.e. indented). The only direct critisism I can see is "CAMERA was right about the problems on Wikipedia" and it goes on to say that Wikipedia can be improved by people getting involved, using good references such as books, and correcting factual mistakes. I think by context it is clear that the statement means "specific instances of anti-Israel bias exist on WP" or more specifically still, that mistakes exist in Wikipedia and these can be corrected by doing the research and updating wikipedia (providing the information and the sources). If it was saying Wikipedia is "biased overall against Israel" the recommendation to get involved in an effort to improve Wikipedia (in all topic areas) would be out of place. Oboler (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In the HR piece you talk about Wikipedians for Palestine, and about multiple "people commenting on the CAMERA case who were shown to be involved in this Palestinian group." Um, who are these people? Only User:DieWeisseRose was verifiably involved in this group, so far as I know. I know of absolutely no evidence linking any other editor to this group, except perhaps User:Tiamut's voluntary statement that she remembered seeing the original alert go out in 2006, but couldn't remember whether she had subscribed to their mailing list, and wasn't active on it. Is there something I missed? <eleland/talkedits> 14:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eleland, there is nothing that is public that you have missed (at least not that I've published or written on Wikipedia that involves naming specific users). Answering the question would require releasing further information... I'm not sure I want to do that. You'll note my page on User:DieWeisseRose was published after others announced this connection in discussion... having done the research I wanted the connections made clear (and easy to follow) once it was known publically. Sorry I can't be more helpful right now. Oboler (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Redact

See [2], I've removed the privacy info. Don't out people again. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice

[3] --Southkept (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbComm - 1000 words

Instructions clearly state a maximum of 1000 words. Your section is now 3621 words. Please cut it back to proper size, before someone else does it for you. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've cut it to 1900... that's as much as I can do. Half of it is really a seperate arbitration issue, but related. I've been advised I can go over as long as it is as short and clear as possible. Thanks for the heads up though, and it did make it much shorter which I'm sure the Arbs will appreciate. Oboler (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA ArbComm

Hi Oboler. Thanks for your note. I watched that case, but did not get involved. I read your material, as well as the articles you (I assume it was you) wrote for the Jerusalem Post and elsewhere. I thought you did a commendable job. Unfortunately, the case was closed on 20:07, 28 May 2008, so I don;t think there's much you can do at this point to get the evidence re-considered. the best thing for now is to keep a watchful eye for POV violations, and to work collaboratively to fix them. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Zionism on the web links

Yes, it was rank opportunism. However, I'm not convinced on the reliability of the source as a whole. Are there specific pages that you think should be linked? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for those removals don't seem strong; I've reverted for now, pending a better explanation from CJCurrie. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Integrated banner for WikiProject Computer science

I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 04:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Internet Defense Force

Right now I don't see any conflict of interest since the reference that you put onto the page is not inherently self-promoting. I haven't removed the CoI tag though because I haven't the time to check it in depth right now. — A lizard (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Oboler Please check The Jewish Internet Defense Force And discuss with if any thing was wrong with my edits--Puttyschool (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

JIDF

--Puttyschool (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

JIDF

Thanks for your note. I don't know much about the topic, but I do know that that particular editor is rather determined when it comes to including original research that supports his POV, so you've got your work cut out for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Oboler
Please share your point of view--Puttyschool (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've commented. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Oboler, check this "most notably the Facebook group..." and compare with "with main focus on the Facebook group..." or suggest, Keep eyes on spots. CU--Puttyschool (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Oboler
I’m sorry as my responses are not fast, we are In a testing phase of a project, I sleep for only 3 hours and my assistant fade cause of monitoring the article, I read your paper, I don’t have a problem with it, at the same time Peter POV is logical, so I requested from Malcolm X to share his POV.--Puttyschool (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter's POV is about wording... it is not a good enough reason to remove 3 sources from the article altogether. Specially a front page news story and an academic report. He didn't just delete the sentence over a quibble (which I still feel he is wrong on as explained in the talk) but deleted the references entirely. As his comments seem to suggest he has a problem with the group being referred to as antisemitic (a personal opinion of his, running counter to RS including those in the final paragraph in addition to these he removed) he is removing the sources. Sorry if you don't see that... I thought you would see it immediately (the damage done to the article I mean) :/ Oboler (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing similar organisations with exactly the same organisation. see also is used to see topics of a similar or allied nature....Also JIDF is promoting not just an organisation of negation....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC) "see also" doesn't suggest that the groups have exactly the same aim or is allied to that organisation or even receives funding from the same source....They are both internet pressure groups organisations with similar aims. "see also" is used to say see similar subject. I should have included CAMERA and MEMRI....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Metapedia

Did you ever read this ? : http://en DOT metapedia DOT org/wiki/Holocaust.
You can also look for Israel (try Zionist entity)...
Don't you think it is more "dangerous" than Facebook or wikipedia ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment in the JIDF AfD

Hi Oboler. I've just responded at my talk page to the comment you made there a week ago - sorry for the delay, I've only just returned to internet access. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

David with JIDF

One of the sources mentions death threats. Are you in contact with him or able to message to see if this is a concern to leave his name off the article? I don't want to out him. Banjeboi 06:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

another JIDF point. I think Nonzionist is correct in calling you on this statement: "That one of the accounts (NonZionist) looks like it may be a sockpuppet is of further concern." In wikipedia, this is a serious accusation of bad faith. Absent strong evidence, you should assume good faith .... Please retract your statement and, if I may be so bold, made some kind of amends with him, ok? I don't want user conduct issues to eat up the JIDF talk page. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just stopping by here. I'm not sure about the seriousness of the accusation. However, being new here and rather clueless of how to do things, I'm am a bit suspicious of how quickly "NonZionist" has picked up on everything. Also, he or she came around at the same time CJCurrie and Ashley Kennedy have either toned it down (disappeared) or got blocked, or something. The article in question has seemed to be targeted as soon as it was created by people who just don't seem to like the JIDF or what the JIDF stands for. Certainly someone with the name "NonZionist" would arouse some amount of suspicion---especially concerning the timing of this. Again, I'm not familiar enough w/ the seriousness of accusations and such, but I personally have a hard time "assuming good faith" in general and ESPECIALLY when there are so many curious red flags all at once. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force

If the sources don't mention "Jewish Internet Defense Force", then the material is original research, and should be removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite.

“

• Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
• Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

”

Not every source has to mention a group for us to find the material helpful for understanding and covering them. Banjeboi 02:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, quite. Per WP:NOR, "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article." It's in the lede for a reason, and it's bolded for a reason too. The only way to show it is directly related to the topic is if the source, you know, actually mentions the topic. Without that, the claim that the material is "helpful for understanding and covering them" is the most common kind of Original Research. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not quite. I think judging what is the "most common kind of Original Research" might be an interesting task but I'll leave that for others to determine. For the JIDF article, using sources that don't mention "Jewish Internet Defense Force" is not a form original research. As your quote above states - "directly related" - if we are adding content about a subject directly related to JIDF but a source doesn't also mention JIDF that is hardly OR. Well-sourced material in context or advancing a position supported by a reliable source that are directly related to JIDF are fine, per policy. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, quite. If the material you add doesn't mention JIDF, then how do you know it's "directly related"? Only by OR, which, of course, is forbidden by policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm more confused than I was before. I think the issue is that things can be directly related via another source. For example, an article on A states position P which is believed by A. The article says position P is also held by group I and J (or more significantly, perhaps P has a philosophical history of which A is the latest proponent). It seems logical that the article on A would mention position P if it was significant to them. It further seems logical that until there is an article on position P, article A would include an brief explanation about P and citations to sources not mentioning A, but which talk about P. I think the confusion is that in this case P and not A is actually the topic (and least in this section of the article)... in which case you are both right. :) Oboler (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't follow that alphabet lesson but I think you may e correct. On the JIDF article if we talk about Wikipedia, for instance, and note there have been many groups who disagreed with an article about them and cited a source that didn't specifically mention JIDF but certainly supported what was stated I think it's fine. If not there is an awful lot of FA articles in violation. -- Banjeboi 12:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Contact

Hi Oboler. Could you please contact me via e-mail when you are online. Cheers. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The JC etc

Hi Andre, I've just spotted your comment to me on another user's talk page. I'm not that well up on Jewish community politics. I may glance at the JC when I visit my parents but I'm not a subscriber myself. I know that the JC has been disliked by fundamentalists ever since it sided with Louis Jacobs against the US but you clearly know about more recent issues than I do. I'm not really interested in which state "David Appletree" lives in, what originally interested me in that JC article was the confirmation that he was based in the States. I think it is relevant that the JIDF has an American origin. I then noticed a blog that pointed out the Kahanist logo in the picture DA supplied the JC with and this has become what I think is the most important thing in the JC page.

I'm all for stomping on antisemitism. I do not feel sorry for Nobody of Consequence getting scared because of JIDF emails. London football crowds have a problem with antisemitism (related to the Spurs hoologan gang being called the Yids which in turn arose from an in-joke by Jews in the script for Till Death Do Us Part). I've reported the worst offenders to the security at Chelsea FC, emailed my MP to support MacShanes campaign against AS at football matches and been attacked on a Chelsea mailing list when I pointed out the connection between the English Unionist (not trades unionism) movement and neo-Nazis. (You can still sometimes see the flag of the old Stormont government at Chelsea matches and I've noticed people with broad cockney accents with the Stormont flag as an earring design.)

However, just as I want to resist antiSemitism, I want to fight bigotry within Jewish communities and the links between the JIDF and Kahanism mean that I cannot regard the JIDF as a good thing. The fact that the media, including the Jewish media, have taken the JIDF on face value allows Kahanists to use it as a recruiting ground. There are several Jews among the people the JIDF attacked. Their original material attacking me said that I was probably not Jewish, but if I was I was a self-hating Jew. The FAZ article is the only coverage in the mainstream media of the JIDF I've seen that has begun to scratch beeath the suface. That the Jewish media and media experts, such as yourself, keep quiet about their own gospel of hate and only highlight their bashing of their mirror images among the pro-Palestinianians or the gentile far right is abad reflection on the Jewish community.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter, I'd rather not comment on the location of the JIDF spokesperson I've been in contact with as there is a good reason he wants his location removed. That reason related to death threats against him and the about that is available in a number of sources. As a safety matter it must take priority over everything else. Purely from an academic point of view... if the JIDF is a grassroots movement, and is coordinated via the internet... I'm not sure it can really be fix geographically. I gave a number of talks to schools and community organisations a couple of weeks ago. These talks were in Sydney Australia and in two different talks people who said they were members of the JIDF and in contact with the JIDF spokesperson introduced themselves to me. In one case someone had been involved since well before the JIDF gained any press. I know a number of major organisations and officials dealing with racism from different governments monitor the output of the JIDF and find it of interest. Looking purely at what they do on antisemitism... it is something new and interesting.

Some related but gneral discussion... The position of Zionism On The Web is that we have a very vanila definition of Zionism and almost everyone will say "we agree, but you should also add..." and the reason we don't add any more is because they would all add something different. By keeping to the basics we can all agree on, we can work together. Further, if a Jewish organiation is doing something in a manner you feel is incorrect, I believe the correct approach is to speak to them privately about it. One should always try to resolve issues with the smallest number of people possible... before esculating if needed. If you do have a critisism, try to focus on the substance of the critisism and not the organisation as a whole.

As a general principle, one can investigate hatred of Jews, hatred of Muslims, hatred of gays, hatred of travellers... but to investigate "hatred of X minority group by Y minority" is a problem and should be avoided if possible. Where it is not possible is when (for example) an examplination of hatred of X shows that 50% eminates from community Y. Then there is something to talk about and the focus is not simply targetting community Y. Even then there is a need to investigate if it is a subset of community Y or if there is a related factor.

There is much more that could be said... perhaps e-mail me if you want to continue the discussion? I'm not sure it is really wikipedia related, and in as much as it is, my comment immediately above I hope explains I would view with concern anyone specifically looking to find and then critisise any minority group for anything. It does give the appearance of putting the cart before the horse and may be itself be racist in effect if not in intention. Anyway e-mail if you want to discus further.

Oboler (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP

As things are quiet at the BLP page, I've posted at User talk:Jayvdb‎#Andre Oboler's BLP query in the hope that he'll post to the thread. There was someone else who pruned things from the JIDF talk apge so you could try chasing them too.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Later: It looks like they'll be progress in a little while when he's finished dealing with another matter.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for following up Peter. Oboler (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Andre, John has now contacted me saying he is ready to look at this and suggesting you email him.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, I'll try find his details and drop him a note. Oboler (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added a sidebox (which also functions as a topbox) at Talk:The Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 10#Found JIDF officer list on Facebook group. If the wording doesnt quite suit, or you have other BLP concerns, could you email me. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John, I believe that will resolve it... thanks again. Oboler (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

JIDF

The page is currently semi-protected for a month. I'm trying to push through some fixes to long term problems during this time. Please feel free to comment on my suggestions. I know you had been thinking about adding material yourself at one point. Feel free to propose anything you think appropriate.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)