User talk:Steven J. Anderson/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Holocaust

Hi, i see that you removed my addition of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni in the Holocaust article. I think it is an important fact to mention this person. If you read the section of "Development and execution" the first sentence is "Yehuda Bauer, Raul Hilberg and Lucy Dawidowicz maintained that from the Middle Ages onward, German society and culture were suffused with anti-Semitism and there was a direct link from medieval pogroms to the Nazi death camps of the 1940s". This suggests that Germany always shared an anti semitic view in its entire history and that the Holocaust could be named as done by choice. I think the fact that the Holocaust has a background based on a Person of Islam, exspecially a palestinian, is not a fact everybody knows or what the average reflection of history tells you. The article treats the origin of the shoah, and this information is a very important one for the real background of it. I would like to hear your opinion for this. I moved the placement of the text to a more "fitable" location. I only used quotes of the original article of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, i will work the text out if i have time, but i think it is neccessary to post this fact even if it is grammaticly not worked out yet. greetings. --Santiago84 (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Steven J. Anderson. You have new messages at Talk:Redemption movement.
Message added 06:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I see that you've undone a legitimate attempt to make the Redemption Movement article maintain a NPOV. You used the statement 'The entire notion that there are two equally valid views on this is nonsense that violates WP:VALID'. Do you have any trusted 3rd party sources to back you up on that claim? Or, was this your own personal editing mission to remove the changes? What credentials give you the authority to make unilateral changes to an article? Please present me with some kind of compelling (not personal) reason why you did this. I will be making note of this incident. Visitor10001 (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I sense that you acted out of haste and possibly for personal religious reasons (not sure though). Due to the extreme measures you have taken to edit this article, I feel that you are a WP:BULLY, and you should always remember to engage the discussion group in meaningful conversation before taking it upon yourself to edit an article. This incident will be noted Visitor10001 (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not you'd like to admit it, 'adherents' of the 'Redemption Movement' encompass people from all walks of life, and all sorts of different ethnic and social backgrounds. While it may or may not be true that the 'Redemption Movement' was started by supposed supporters/members of the Posse Comitatus movement, this is not grounds for removal of any of the article's text. Whether or not you'd like to admit it, there are many people out there using these 'theories' to successfully gain control over their personal financial situations over the fraudulent U.S. government's legislation (See HJR 192, and really ponder it for a moment, if you can find the time and mental capacity). I myself do not promote hate and violence, law breaking, or tax-evasion. I feel that the NPOV is essential to the reader's ability to draw a conclusion about this subject, and I am deeply saddened by your hasty attempt to prevent this process from unfolding. Should you choose to respond to my comments here, please avoid personal attacks, assume good faith, and always sign your comments using four tildes, so I can see that you've responded with your 'personal signature'. Thanks. Visitor10001 (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Informational note: this is to let you know that there is no longer a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which I may (or may not) have been involved (in) . Regards, Visitor10001 (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Noakh's ark and antisemitism

Someone deleted the section because he couldn't understand it and thought the sourcing was inadequate, but why discuss when one can delete several hours of another editor's work, right? Please read it and see if you can understand it. More importantly, please provide comments on any improvements I can make given your expereince in copyediting. Thank you in advance Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach

Thanks for taking this over. Frankly, I was getting tired of it. Shmuley Boteach is of no interest to me, I would much rather be editing Johann Gottlieb Graun. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not sure I'm taking over, just trying to contribute as constructively as I can. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Improper interference (Byzantine Empire)

Unless you are willing to make a useful input to a discussion please do not de facto continue edit wars on someone else's behalf. My minor edit was not sibject to consensus since it was merely an attempt to return questionable wording to a neutrality. Thousands of articles in Wikipedia contain errors, grammatical, factual or just plain misprints. The fact that they persist for long periods doesn't make them a product of consensus, an actual discussion does.--Alvez3 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is the article talk page. You have yet to begin participating at that page. This also applies to the remarks you left at User talk:DeCausa. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

On this page I am discussing your demeanor rather than the subject of the article. Please refrain from editing my talk page unless you have something to discuss with me. You want to discuss the subject of the entry go to the appropriate page.--Alvez3 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you keep editing my talk page without a reason I will file a complaint with administrators--Alvez3 (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What I was doing was replying to the message you left here. And don't worry, the administrators know about it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course they do. And you shouldn't worry either, I watch your talk page - when you post a reply I can see it.--Alvez3 (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:91.155.234.89

I thought calling for "all Finns to sabotage Wikipedia" was bad. Then I saw the accusation that Wikipedia was "SEGNPMSS-controlled". Googling SEGNPMSS comes up with one of the wackiest blogs I've ever seen, e.g. Wikipedia hiding evidence that Hitler is still alive, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Undoing the handiwork of jonathangluck

I have nominated the following articles for deletion, all flowing from the pen of the sockpuppet firm of 5WPR:

Elie Hirschfeld Stewart Rahr GoldMoney Kinray Jordan Sekulow

You may may wish to comment. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up, but please take a look at WP:CANVASS and be careful how you notify people. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but it's always best to have one eye on that policy when notifying other editors about a discussion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I only notified users who were directly involved in the affair. I think they would like to know, and that it was fair to inform them. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal interests and bias

Hi Steven, I understand that given your personal interests and/or bias that you would be inclined to write responses such as the one you responded to me regarding the usage of the word "only" when referring to holocaust deniers who make "claims to a figure of only one million deaths, or only three hundred thousand casualties."

But please be aware that your justification which is "I can hardly think of a more appropriate way to use the word 'only.'" comes off as sounding as though one million Jewish deaths is insignificant. Specifically that is the equivalent of saying that one million Jewish deaths out of the internationally accepted figure of six million is insignificant which is a disgrace to 1/6 of those who lost their lives during this tragedy. 24.192.252.192 (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I can assure you that you are in a state of blissful ignorance regarding any personal interest or bias you imagine I have. The place to discuss the article is the article's talk page, not here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree and so I have done so. Your ignorant response here and there is quite interesting and not exactly winning any world brownie points (if that is your intention). I'm especially shocked considering how prompt you were in your replies to me personally (as well as others). That is not conclusive evidence of a hive entity but it sure makes one wonder, therefore I am not shy to say such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryal-oh (talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

WQA notice

Hello, Steven J. Anderson. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Steven J. Anderson. You have new messages at Zakhalesh's talk page.
Message added 18:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Violation of WP:Harassment#Posting of personal information

Please stop reverting the deletion of this violation of this policy. The policy pertains throughout Wikipedia, to all users of Wikipedia, including you, and the posters of the deleted alleged information. Reposting it will subject you and the others to blocks by Oversight. Oversight needs to be contacted about this; the procedure for contacting Oversight is defined in the section of WP:Harassment#Posting of personal information. This policy makes no exceptions for such violations. The deletions must be removed from Wikipedia's permanent record. These are violations of Wikipedia's own privacy policies. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop editing through your ban. If there's any merit to what you say, another user will delete it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nazi-German concentration camps

Commonly, the term 'Polish concentration camps' is used, though the responsibility for that is Nazi German. Please, find several links attached:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry#Poland_controversy http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/27/us-auschwitz-name-idUSL2776311720070627 http://www.topix.com/forum/world/new-zealand/TAD5JTSSBQGU9D4I8

I understand that for you it is clear that Nazi Germans were responsible for Holocaust, but some people do not know European history that well, especially those from outside the continent. This is not because of their ignorance, but rather distance to Europe or the focus of their education systems on other fields of knowledge than history. Also, believe me or not, holocaust is being denied: http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/h/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4&Itemid=4

From the year 2007, Auschwitz-Birkenau, the biggest concentration camp's name is as following: 'Auschwitz Birkenau. German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp'. This is stated by the United Nations: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/31

Do you agree the change from 'Concentration camps' into 'Nazi-German concentration camps' or 'German Nazi concentration camps' is a need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 19:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello Steven, my name is Quinn I saw you undid my contribution to Passover, as as observing someone removed one of your helpful contributions about leavening, could you explain why it was removed? I am always learning, and have heard many teachers express these speculations, and that is why I clearly labled them as speculation, but the citations in The Law are pretty clear, and suitable enough as citation requirments. Thanks, I appreciate people trying to retain the legitimacy, and I would rather leave the site if I was being deleted by the contention that seems increasingly common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doulosquinn (talk • contribs) 01:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ark of the Covenant

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.251.150 (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI

See WP:ANI#Outraged where the article Tachash is being discussed. Fences&Windows 16:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, Steven J Anderson--you have gone where I dreamed someone would go. Good work cleaning up that article; I had given up on it completely. Best, Drmies (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep it on your watchlist and let's hope it sticks. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

help editing

if you have time please go to my talk page to help editing in my project "Arab and Islamic colonization" thanksSn 16:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandinistas (talk • contribs)

Style dispute

Greetings, Steven. Could I ask you to look at the recent history at Temple Mount? 71firebird is persistent in changing the era-dating style, may be justified (I can't quite be sure) but is disruptive and now past 3RR. Would appreciate your advice on proper course of action. The article has been stable in one style for many years, but long ago had another or was mixed. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick action toward resolution of this situation. You are a good role model for clarity and fairness, and help educate me. I am also pleased to see my original reactions vindicated. Much obliged. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Although I gave the editor a 3RR notice, upon further reflection I suspect that the article in question is actually covered by a 1-revert-rule, since it has to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict. Since this rule tends to be rather stringently enforced, I'd rather not have to go to the 3RR noticeboard over it. Best practice with an edit warrior is usually to drop a 3RR notice on his talk page before he breaches 3RR. That way when you go to the noticeboard you can say that he's already been warned. Note that in 71firebird's case, his first edit to the article was a revert since it was restoring the article to a state already created by an IP. Also remember that if you're at the talk page and your interlocutor is not you stand in a better position when dealing with sysops and requesting policy enforcement. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Points duly noted and well taken. If a similar situation arises again, as unfortunately it well may, I will be better prepared to help preserve the cease fire. Thanks also for your excellent point-by-point outline on the article's talk page. It's been a busy day. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Great job

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Excellent job getting Tachash under control. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period

Oncenawhile (talk · contribs) has tried to do an end-run around the decision not to change the article name. Because you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you would be interested. You'll find the discussion here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Hoffa and the "Abuse of the legal system" category

Hello. I'm not quite sure why you see my adding the category Abuse of the legal system to the Jimmy Hoffa article as a POV. He was convicted of jury tampering.

Rhsimard (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You read my mind

Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking, more directly than I would have said it ([1]). :) MastCell ^Talk 23:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

NPA

Impugning my editorial motivation in my AN/I request for an administrative determination of policy is neither appropriate nor unanticipated. It rather, unfortunately, goes with the territory if one expresses an opinion contrary to that of a community majority. Please stop. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what you may think, I have every right to comment on an AN/I thread. You may count upon your exhortation to stop being disregarded. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

With some additional reflection, if you wish to further impugn my motives, the floor is yours. I have recalled WP:BOOMERANG and do recall that considerations as to petitioner conduct is fair game. My apologies. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Militant Atheism/Czechoslovakia

Add."Czechoslovakia: None of this is properly sourced. The Czech source is not verifiable by English speakers"

Pls. explain in detail:

(i)What do you suggest to change to come up up to your standard (pls. also demonstrate the violation of any WP rule).

(ii)What czech source you have in mind, I do declare that there was no czech source used in the article.--193.219.198.36 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the Czech source is that I don't read Czech and most of the other editors don't read Czech. Therefore, we cannot verify what the source says. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Steve you are right two other editors have notified the user and no steps were taken to cite this material. It may be true, half true, hoax, who knows, but the place fo that is on cz.wikipedia not en.wikipedia and they know it so they should stop hassling you about this and come back with English citations. They hurt their cause by hassling English-speaking Wikipedians and will be more effective diplomats if they respect the customs. The more they try to push the content the less credible it seems. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah you're right

I shouldn't, even on Talk have used the word "redneck" about someone placing this in a quotation box in the article text:

Canadian B'nai Brith considers messianic activities as antisemitic incidents:

"One of the more alarming trends in antisemitic activity in Canada in 1998 was the growing number of incidents involving messianic organizations posing as "synagogues". These missionizing organizations are in fact evangelical Christian proselytizing groups, whose purpose is specifically to target members of the Jewish community for conversion. They fraudulently represent themselves as Jews, and these so-called synagogues are elaborately disguised Christian churches."[125]

In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

CARM

This is a courtesy note to let you know that I cited this edit you made to the article earlier today in arbitration evidence.

I had done some work on this article a while ago, and still had it on my watchlist, but somehow missed the addition of this video. I agree with the removal of the embedded video, for the reasons you stated (though I think we could add a Commons sisterlink). Cheers, --JN466 13:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Pre-Noleander version of Criticism of Judaism

Hi Steven,

The question of your May revert of Criticism of Judaism to the pre-Noleander version has arisen again. Perhaps you can explain why you felt that step was appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Solomon

I don't know why you reverted me - but I've reverted your edit - as I say in my edit summary, LORD worried me but I checked the source and that is what the source says (now I am not altogether happy about that site, but that's what it says). You reverted my sourced text which I'd added to make the section NPOV by offering varying viewpoints. If you still think your reversion was justified, please take it to the talk page, but I suspect you weren't aware of the other edits today. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that I didn't carefully track all the edits I was reverting. What I meant to do was return the article to the state it was in before Christmysaviour (talk · contribs) began editing it because, in my view, what he was doing was highly POV. In any case, I'm familiar enough with your work to have full confidence that I have no need to revert what you've done. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence, but I was pretty sure you'd agree with me from seeing your work! I almost reverted the LORD change, but that was how the source spelled it, so I left it. I did revert some of the stuff on Luke & Matthew and replaced it with a sourced NPOV statement. He then removed another part of that paragraph which I actually thought improved it. Worth monitoring for a while I think. Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Craptastic" Article on Swami Budhpuri rewritten"

The above article has been rewritten...and it is believed it should no longer appear a "spam" and "craptastic"..the "fantastic claims" no longer appear...your earlier review was welcomed heartily...please review it once more on its talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swami_Budhpuri_Ji/Temp and suggest possible improvements...thanks Svechu (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

bams article

thanks for the cleanup :) Abhijeet Safai 16:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai (talk • contribs)

Defense of incivility

Strange that you are rushing to defend someone who is being plain nasty for no discernible reason. He doesn't own Judaism articles and i see no reason why editing Rosh Hashana is being treated as some kind of crime.--Mahmoodinsky (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please point out to me where he is being plain nasty or treating anything as some kind of crime. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Johann Hari

The main issue, so far as his reliability goes, is that he admitted that he plagiarised by using other sources to improve quotations. I don't see anywhere that his overall reporting has been "thoroughly discredited". But maybe I'm missing something. What's your basis for making that assertion?   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a thorough look at Talk:Johann Hari. His credibility is shot as far as I can see. I don't exactly like the idea of taking out that quotation, but I don't see how Hari has the kind of reputation or notability that makes his opinion or description sufficiently WP:WEIGHTy to include. I don't know if one of Hari's socks first added the material, but if he did, that's more reason to delete it. If you really want it in, I won't re-delete, but I think it's at least worth a discussion at the talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I've started a thread at Talk:Johann Hari#Overall credibility to discuss the issue.   Will Beback  talk  01:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way

...I was serious when I said "no issues" on ANI. The other editor has been told more than once that their comments were unhelpful on ANI, and "step away from the keyboard" was perfect proof. ANI is funny grounds - your comment was pretty "are you sure?"-ish, but the other user's sure wasn't. Cheers!(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyology (2nd nomination)

Hey!

Just wanted to let you know a minor issue: Between the third vote and your vote, I stumbled on some minor copyvio in the article when double-checking I hadn't left anything out I should have mentioned. Here's the deletion, it includes removing a link to a source, but I'm pretty sure it's one of the Google Book results - HGJ:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eyology&action=historysubmit&diff=454119655&oldid=454119310

I've now noted that edit in the AfD, but I wanted to make sure that I didn't accidentally hide anything from the voters, so, y'know. =) 86.176.222.245 (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		They say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit... nevertheless, this was hilarious. Yunshui (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Another one

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Another one for this. Just brilliant. :) Swarm 18:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

It doesn't matter how egregious their vandalism was. It's never alright to sink to the level of a vandal and call someone a 'loser' -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Reality check

Hi! I should have said that: [2], but foolishly didn't think of it. :) Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the way it works...

Toss out another edit summary like that, and you and I will be heading over to AN/I. I was responding to Viriditas. You can disagree with me without being a tool, Steven. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Steven J. Anderson. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Punk. Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

PA

Whilst Jack may be a pain at times your comment here [[3]] was a PA. I ask you to please not make this kind of comment again.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictish language

Hi, I've reverted the edit you made on this page earlier today, as I believe it was made in error. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, please discuss at Talk:Pictish language. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think you've made the same mistake here as well on the Hibernia article. I haven't reverted it yet however. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that I look at the history of Hibernia more closely, I see a number of changes back and forth to era style over the last year. I won't object if anyone changes it back. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Paranoid androids

Regarding The Paranoid Style in American Politics: Excellent taste, good sir! One of Hofstadter's best works. I was reading an article that made reference to it this morning in fact. What an amazing coincidence that Hofstadter delivered it as a lecture at Oxford the day before the shooting of President Kennedy, which made the paranoid style even more widespread. It's almost like it was planned. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This one, by any chance? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check

Steven, is there a way to check User:Sniperscout to see if the account is an SP of our friend from the article Tachash? Take a look at [4]. I don't want to blindly revert the contributions if they are legit but I don't have the energy to wade through crap and clean it up if the guy will see my contribs as a validation of his SP and start pouring on more and more crap. Joe407 (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:SPI. For what it's worth, I share your suspicions. Be sure to include IPs that he is known to have used in the past in the filing, as most of his registered accounts are too stale to identify. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And we're back, at Talk:Tachash

Hmm care to guess who User:Sniperscout is? I've added them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hermitstudy though I don't know what good a CU can do. See that article talk page for an exciting update on the IP! The fun continues. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ha, that'll teach me to to look up on the talk page before I post. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi Steven, As you've recently discussed a related topic, I thought you might be interested in this discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

banned sockpuppet?

Hi Steven,

Regarding this comment, I was curious, who is the sockpuppet/sockpuppeter? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me based on behavioral evidence that this is yet another sockpuppet of LittleOldManRetired (talk · contribs), Michael Paul Heart (talk · contribs) and all the other tachash socks mentioned at this ANI thread. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable assumption. Have you considered getting a CU? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed per CU by User:Tnxman307, and now blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Paul Heart--for the record. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Gardasil

So why are you removing information from the Gardasil page mentioning opposition and the documented association people are making with 'Conversion Disorder'? I found your reason for reverting my edit unworthy, and note that it was done without any comment in the 'talk' section. When this 'disorder' struck someone that I was linked to, I went to Wiki to see if I could find a link, and nothing, it was only the rest of the web that let me see that people were making this connection. I would think that placing this information under the 'controversy' section would be appropriate, and that my voice was appropriately neutral, and my references were good examples of exactly what I was saying. So, being an old wiki hand, here I am, rather than just undoing your change, engaging you on it. My text below:

Opponents suggest that Gardasil is responsible for rare but severe, life-altering, and even deadly side-effects, often diagnosed as Conversion Disorder, and have become a vocal minority opposing the vaccine, linking it to thousands of injuries and 48 deaths.\

173.70.173.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC).

Was Marx a Jew?

I know he was born a Jew, but he was baptized. If you know of any RS's on the topic can you post them here? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

NSTruthTeller

NS? Can't imagine what that might stand for. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Holocaust

I'm confused. What are you trying to do?

I combined the responses that were above the edit request (because the section said it was a reply to the edit request.

I deleted nothing. I put the proposed edit in a <pre> and collapsed it, because of the formatting error.

I can understand fixing the format error, and reverting the collapse, but you've lost me with all the other reverts. Begoon ^talk 01:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a broken ref tag in the request that was screwing up the display of the page. Just give me about 10 minutes and I'll have it in a shape that I think is straightened out. When I clicked on the collapsed material, it didn't display properly. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok - I didn't check expanding the collapse. No worries. Begoon ^talk 01:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I put the comments responding to the edit request back in that section, since I'm fairly sure that's what the OP said he was trying to do, but they wouldn't display for him due to the ref error. Seems all good now. see you around. Begoon ^talk 02:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Steven J. Anderson. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed topic ban of User:DeknMike. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Another notice

Greetings, Steven. I think you may find the discussions here and here of especial interest. The latter one is currently the more active of the two. Your thoughts are invited. Very best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.

I hate to use multiple templates all at once, but your edit to Poseidon was quite out of line. Not only did you break the WP:ERA rule, which you referred to in your edit summary just in case nobody realised, you even tried to justify it by falsely accusing the rest of us of having an edit war. The issue had already been discussed and settled; User:RJC's last edit there was 3 days ago. You weren't even involved until just now when you disrupted the article. Please leave it alone. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

Maimonides

Jimjilin reported at WP:AIV as it is obvious he's socking (spi no good as they won't deal link IP addresses). Maybe I should have gone to 3RR, silly that I'm not sure. Not worth getting yourself in trouble over, as you said on the talk page. Posted to Wikiproject Judaism to get more input. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Now blocked for a week, I hadn't noticed that he's edited logged out like this before. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, missed your post to WPJ. Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Pol Pot: Kristof is a great source. I think I should report you for violating Wikipedia policy for edit warring. I suggest you reconsider your actions. Jimjilin (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Maimonides: I have responded to criticism and now I am just quoting Shahak directly. I don't see what the problem is. I think Shahak is a significant voice who should not be ignored. Gore Vidal and Edward Said and Robert Fisk have all praised Jewish History, Jewish Religion.

quote: He became a well-known activist in international circles, co-authoring papers and giving joint speaking engagements with American political dissident Noam Chomsky, and winning plaudits from Jean Paul Sartre, Gore Vidal, Christopher Hitchens and Edward Said.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shahak#Politics_and_works

Norton Mezvinsky and Ilan Pappe each wrote a forward for Jewish History, Jewish Religion. The fact that he is a scientist hardly disqualifies him from making contributions in other fields! Is Chomsky ignored when he speaks on topics other than linguistics? Jimjilin (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 66.99.132.30 / Toddsmith199 / Toadsmith / 50.103.xxx.xxx. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

History of antisemitism

Please answer my entries in Talk:History of antisemitism rather than imposing your POV.

• What was the reason of sending the St Louis Jews to death other than antisemitism? MS St. Louis has Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents.
• What is the connection between Simon of Trent and Eastern Europe? Roman-Catholics live in Italy, Spain and Latin America and many Eastern Europeans are Orthodox.Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Authority?

Would you please identify to me what authority you have on Wikipedia including an objectively verifiable source?Jpetersen46321 (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

See

User talk:Jpetersen46321. I didn't see anything else that would work. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Awards lists in play articles

Based on your past editing activity, you may want to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre#Award enumeration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Steven J. Anderson. You have new messages at Talk:Blood libel#Blood libel is a "false" accusation.
Message added 17:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 26 May 2013 (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) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)