User talk:Dronkle/Archives/2010/March

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Failure to follow correct WP:AFD process

When you tagged the Israeli art student scam article for deletion, you did not perform step 3 as described here and list it in the deletion log. Why not? Editors who patrol AFD need to be kept updated about new listings.

I have now listed the article in the deletion log, but the deletion discussion should be extended by two days to make up for the lost time. Factsontheground (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I wanted to ask you if the new sources found, particularly, this one [1] do anything to change your opinion about the notability of the topic and its connection by reliable sources to 9/11. Note that Ketcham argues here that these art students were likely part of a Israeli spy ring that was tracking Islamic fundamentalists in the US prior to 9/11. That's a viewpoint that isn't represented in our article yet, and one I would like to add. However, Factsontheground removed the 9/11 related material in response to your concerns regarding WP:OR. Do you, upon reviewing this link, and the other article from Insight on the News, that I recently added to the article, still think that connection is OR? You do realize that it was also made by Alexander Cockburn in a book he wrote on anti-Semitism that has since been removed from our article as well to respond to your concerns.

Thanks for considering these issues. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 21:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RE : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli art students

The topic is the same, but the material and sources in both versions of the article are substantially different. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I'm waiting for your response to the link I provided you above and the new material I've since added to the article. Specifically, I'd like to know if you still feel its undue and a coatrack, given that mutliple reliable sources link the subject of the art student scam with the espionage allegations. True, some of them do this only to note their opinion that its untrue, but a few others leave the question open. I think we can write a NPOV article on the subject, if its approached dispassionately by all involved. Thanks for considering this issue. Tiamut^talk 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Thanks for your response. What I gather from your comments is that the article still needs improvement to be better reflect the sources cited and fall in line with NPOV. And I agree with much of what you said. What I don't see in your comments is a reason for deletion. Do you still believe the article should be deleted? Tiamut^talk 21:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The article will likely attract some less than NPOV editing. That's not a reason to delete though.

I understand what you are saying about the mixing of issues, but I think that problem stems from the speculative nature of many of the reports in the reliable sourcs cited. The Telegraph for example, mentions the kiosk arrests in an article on the arrests of Israeli art students. Some of the door-to-door art sales articles in other countries recall the original art student scam/espionage ring allegations that led to arrest and deportation of people claiming to be Israeli art students there. The ecstacy trade link is given in the context of the Israeli art student scandal, but isn't given enough attention in our article.

I don't think splitting the information into three different articles is a good solution (I think that will likely result in three articles that will need to be patrolled by experienced editors, rather than just one). I think the best solution, is to attribute information more, and write things like, "An article in The Telegraph on the arrests of the Israeli art students, also mentioned the arrests of 60 Israelis selling toys at kiosks in malls, and said that the FBI was investigating them for espionage." (I'm recalling its contents off the top of my head right now, but you catch my drift?)

Anyway, it certainly does need improvement, but I think the sources cited sufficiently demonstrate the notability of an admittedly somewhat unwieldly topic, due to the way it was covered by reliable sources. More in line attribution and sticking as close to the sources as possible will certainly help I think.

Thanks for discussing this with me. Tiamut^talk 22:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators

I guess if all this drama over the past months has taught me anything, it's that I should stop ignoring the notices pestering me to vote for arbitrators and stewards and whatever things are always popping up on those irritating little banners. I see that arbitrator User:Steve Smith also holds an extreme minority view about (or simply has not thought about or does not understand) what constitutes "contentious" material in BLPs. (That is, he appears to think that unsourced = contentious by definition.) I guess if you don't vote, this is what you get... Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

List of compositions by Gustav Mahler

I've had another go at a list and this is it. I've put it to Peer Review for comment, perhaps you'd look it over? It's all part of my campaign in honour of Mahler's 150th birthday in July - I'm beavering away on the main biography, too. Brianboulton (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Peter

I appreciate the feedback and helpful suggestions you provided. As you know I am new so not much familiar with the process around here.Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP mess

Thank you very much for your support. I had not considered standing for ArbCom. The past 24 hours have been discouraging -- mainly Z-man's latest comment at the ArbCom case. Maurreen (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your question at WP:AN about semiprotection

I looked at the SPI and at the past links to User:Einsteindonut from Wikipedia space. Now that I recall some of the history, I think that your filing at WP:SPI was the right thing to do. Part of the modus operandi of the JIDF socks in the past was to create provocations on Wikipedia, perhaps as a sort of recruiting device, intended to get publicity for the organization. So long as the JIDF article is fully protected, nothing interesting to them is happening here. Might as well let the SPI grind along until an admin closes it. I notice the protection will expire on 16 March. If you think that is not long enough, and the SPI complaint is still waiting for a verdict then, I might be able to extend the protection.EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Just commented on the IP request you started. Just wanted to add a couple of things directly... you should probably declare on that page that you have a long running dispute with the JIDF / the user in question. The dispute was definitely part personal, part political and part related to Wikipedia. Such a declaration may or may not have any bearing on the request, but not disclosing it could lead to questions if people start wondering why you were digging through the logs and compiling this information (it DOES look like you are looking for accusations to make). If each of the edits was itself problematic there would of course be no problem... and I haven't gone through any of those you list, let alone all of them systematically. I'm not entirely sure that sockpuppetry can apply to an IP address. That's because it would make it sock puppetry for someone to forget to login. It would be worse if they forgot numerous times in different locations. The sensible thing would be to only apply sockpuppetry to registered users. That does raise questions about 3RR, etc... but first there would need to be an specific instance of 3RR being broken by one user who is using both a registered username and a bunch of IP accounts. If only IP accounts are used, of course protecting the article is the solution. On another note, I'd be happy to look at the article itself if you think it needs another once over? I haven't looked recently. There is a brief mention of JIDF (and a quote from them) in a piece I recently wrote for presenTense Magazine. Not sure if it adds anything or not. I can say we made the right call on notability... I got the quote as the Magazine editors knew of the JIDF and specifically wanted a quote from them or ADL included. I'm quoting ADL in something else, so that one went to JIDF. Oboler (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I replied to you on my talk page. Oboler (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your question at WP:AN about semiprotection

I looked at the SPI and at the past links to User:Einsteindonut from Wikipedia space. Now that I recall some of the history, I think that your filing at WP:SPI was the right thing to do. Part of the modus operandi of the JIDF socks in the past was to create provocations on Wikipedia, perhaps as a sort of recruiting device, intended to get publicity for the organization. So long as the JIDF article is fully protected, nothing interesting to them is happening here. Might as well let the SPI grind along until an admin closes it. I notice the protection will expire on 16 March. If you think that is not long enough, and the SPI complaint is still waiting for a verdict then, I might be able to extend the protection.EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Just commented on the IP request you started. Just wanted to add a couple of things directly... you should probably declare on that page that you have a long running dispute with the JIDF / the user in question. The dispute was definitely part personal, part political and part related to Wikipedia. Such a declaration may or may not have any bearing on the request, but not disclosing it could lead to questions if people start wondering why you were digging through the logs and compiling this information (it DOES look like you are looking for accusations to make). If each of the edits was itself problematic there would of course be no problem... and I haven't gone through any of those you list, let alone all of them systematically. I'm not entirely sure that sockpuppetry can apply to an IP address. That's because it would make it sock puppetry for someone to forget to login. It would be worse if they forgot numerous times in different locations. The sensible thing would be to only apply sockpuppetry to registered users. That does raise questions about 3RR, etc... but first there would need to be an specific instance of 3RR being broken by one user who is using both a registered username and a bunch of IP accounts. If only IP accounts are used, of course protecting the article is the solution. On another note, I'd be happy to look at the article itself if you think it needs another once over? I haven't looked recently. There is a brief mention of JIDF (and a quote from them) in a piece I recently wrote for presenTense Magazine. Not sure if it adds anything or not. I can say we made the right call on notability... I got the quote as the Magazine editors knew of the JIDF and specifically wanted a quote from them or ADL included. I'm quoting ADL in something else, so that one went to JIDF. Oboler (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I replied to you on my talk page. Oboler (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown

...but wait, there's more....

G'day, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the **Triple Crown** upon Peter cohen for your artful contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the correction. I spoiled a good allusion

oft the teeming earth
Is with a kind of colic pinch'd and vex'd
By the imprisoning of unruly wind

which I'm sure you had in mind. CheersNishidani (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the Asmahan material and left some comments that might be useful. I tried also checking several sources on her, but it got too complicated for me to feel qualified to actually step in and do the edits requested. If someone else gets round to seconding my remarks, I'll gladly restep back in and edit. But I dislike rushing on things, esp. if I haven't any background in the area, though on the face of it, SD seems to have had unfair treatment on several of these proposals.Sorry I couldn't be of more help.Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I need your help with something. As I know that you are aware of, there has been an arbitration case over the Asmahan article, I am now not allowed to change the ethnicity or nationality of a person, but I am allowed to propose changes at a talkpage.

An arb explained this situation pretty good: [2] I have now talked with the drafter of the arbitration case, User talk:Wizardman, he has told me that a third part is needed and that I am allowed to invite a neutral editor to take a look at points of corrections I have presented at the talkpage.

The article is in desperate need of neutral editors. I have pointed out 7 points of correction at the talkpage: [3]

I would like you to take a look at them and see if changes to the article are needed.

Do you think you can get involved in this? I have already asked several people to get involved but no one wants to. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was from me. I was gonna ask you about Nishidani, looking at his user page I thought he was retired, so he couldn't get involved at the article, but as he replied several times, its alright. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in resolution of Authorship mergers?

Greetings, I opened up a dialog with Jimbo who advised this: "For what it is worth, I misread the close. What I meant is that there seems to be a consensus against undertaking a merge. I see that the close says the opposite, perhaps Peter just mistyped? It happens. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC). Peter, can you provide input on this? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see your proven bona fides put under scrutiny due to the fact that we have occasionally worked collegially onnotoriously difficult articles, and that I am a known nuisance, ergo . . .

By the way, as to your earlier query about coordination, if you are still curious, you can check the dates of registration on wikipedia of the many people who edit on, or emerge only to vote on, the authorship doubters pages. Unless I am mistaken, many signed on in May or midyear 2007, a month after the famous Declaration, which has become the banner for the Oxfordian movement, was made by Mark Rylance and Derek Jacobi. I noted this a week ago, but, as I said, I'm too bone lazy, and it may be merely coincidental, based on a very rapid, several minutes of tracing names to pages, checking their page history, about a week ago. I noted a pattern, and wondered why, a mere month after that public declaration, several people, all latterly associated with that movement, registered on wiki. Most have done nothing, except vote or complain. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Anna Larsson

Hi Peter, do you by any chance have info on Anna Larsson? I've just declined a speedy but I suspect the author has already been driven off. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I added bach-cantatas bio and her website (both and more easy to find, even google knows Anna Larsson alto) to the article, please take it from there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Noleander

I would say back to AN/I, Peter, point out that he hasn't stuck to the agreement, and request consensus for a community topic ban from that area, or a general ban depending on what it was he avoided last time by promising to change his approach. I seem to recall that it was a topic ban people were thinking of. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey again

Nishidani who you asked to take a look at the corrections didn't reply to all issues at the talkpage, and it doesn't seem like he has time now. Do you think you can get involved instead?, take a look at the corrections and see if changes to the article are needed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

I invite you to come participate in a peer review of Portal:Speculative fiction. You can see (and participate in) the discussion here. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at AN/I

Do you believe I should go to AE now or I should wait until AN/I is over? Of course, when it is over I will not be able to go AE because of interaction ban. So I am not sure how to proceed. Any advise? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

== Reply to question on my talk page ==

I should first point out that I'm not an admin, though I am considering applying. Also that I can think of only one thread at WP:AE in which I've participated. So you should take my comments with an appropriate pinch of salt and not as the views of someone who is expert on that process.

Until this thread developed, I hadn't been aware of you being in conflict with Facts and I haven't dug through the history to work out what happened. However, whatever led to the conflict between you, I don't think it would look good for you to raise the matter yourself even before the interaction ban is formally implemented. I think it likely that someone would use that as part of a case to get you topic-banned too, saying you were gaming the system. Similarly if other editors who are known to be vocally pro-Israel such as Stellarkid, Bree and NiceGuy were to start the thread at AE, they would be fairly likely to find themselves nominate for topic bans too. (And if it was, say, SupremeDeliciousness who raised the retaliatory topic ban proposal, then I would expect him to be nominated in the next round of tit for tat.) I think there are a fair number of people, including admins and arbs, who take a line of "a plague on both your houses" and would be happy to have a big clearout whoever brings the initial case in the hope that the drama boards would then be quieter.

In contrast, Iron Duke is a pro-Israeli editor who is known to take a soft line on editing restrictions for editors on both sides of the dispute. If he felt enough was enough, he would be taken more seriously at AE and would be unlikely to be regarded as approaching things with a battleground mentality. I notice also that User:JzG expressed some frustration in the thread about Facts (or more particualarly SD) and he isn't someone who I think of as being active in the IP area of content. If someone neutral like him raised the case at AE, then again I think he would be taken seriously.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I moved your response here in order to keep the discussion in the same place. I hope you do not mind. I know you are not an administrator. About the subject itself. None of my edits on I/P conflict subject deserves a topic ban. So I am not afraid to be topic-banned, but if a fair and uninvolved admin would be able to prove with some differences that I do, I will accept the sanctions with no complains. You said it would have been better, if somebody else would have filed AE. Maybe, but how that somebody could ever dig in the history between "facts" and me to file the request. Anyway, thanks for the response. We'll see what happens. If you'd like to respond, please respnd here. I will check on it myself. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Israel FAR

Hi Peter! You commented on the Israel FAR (located here) when it was in the FAR portion of the review. It has since moved to the FARC portion where editors enter keep/delist declarations. Any further comments on the article would be appreciated, as would an opinion on whether the article should be kept at or delisted from FA status. Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)