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.
Only a question
--Puttyschool (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Hi Dtrebbien, I noticed you placed a {{notability}} tag on this article W-PuTTY-CD. At the same time I was adding the stub {{compu-prog-stub}} tag So that other people can help by finding more resources or enhance this article, According to my understanding to stubs I think the stub tag means that this article still needs a lot of work to be a final one.
Can you please help me by explaining why you add the notability notice? As this will help me and others while writing future articles or enhancing existing one.
Thank you for your help and support.
Hello Puttyschool. Yes, it is true that stub articles are works in progress, but stub articles must also establish some notability, which per consensus, is defined as having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In this case, there are no more specific notability criteria for computer software (unlike, for example, academics, athletes, TV episodes, music albums, schools, or websites) so that statement, the so-called general notability requirement, is the only option.
This definition probably seems fairly non-intuitive at first glance, but it arose through negotiation between editors, using the never-ending stream of newly-added pages to aid in its finalization. You might like to look though that list for yourself, Special:Newpages, to see what you would keep or delete (if any deletions), to get an idea of the non-triviality of this issue and insight into why it is worded the way that it is.
Getting back to W-PuTTY-CD, I placed {{notability}} on the article mainly because I would like to challenge the writers who wrote it to better explain to the casual reader why this piece of software is worthy of note, or notable. Several statements can establish this, and here are some examples from notable software-related articles:
Linux is one of the most prominent examples of free software and open source development
Firefoxhad 19.03% of the recorded usage share of web browsers as of June 2008, making it the second-most popular browser in current use worldwide
The GNU Compiler Collection ... has been adopted as the standard compiler by most other modern Unix-like computer operating systems
I am not saying that W-PuTTY-CD has to be nearly as large a project as those, but hopefully they give an idea of what types of statements, which, by the way, are completely factual and supported by independent, reliable sources, satisfy the notability criterion.
Also know that I came across this article and was not familiar with this topic, so you may better know where this stands in the list of SSH clients.
I hope that this helps. If not, please feel free to ask more questions. «D. Trebbien (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
(As you might guess, there are a lot of new articles about academics, athletes, TV episodes, music albums, schools, or websites.)
It is impossible for you to have found the Wikimedia{{Commons}} link on ALL pages because you theoretically could not have actually viewed every page on the English Wikipedia, and because it isn't used on all of them. It is used as a repository for multimedia (image, sound, etc.) files that are free and completely in the public domain. Clicking on such a link directly in an article takes it to a Commons page of exactly the same name, and since there aren't any files uploaded to Commons for this particular article, I removed the link. - CobaltBlueTony™talk 12:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The establishment of notability on Wikipedia is outlined in Wikipedia:Notability: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
This means that any topic should show demonstrable coverage by external sources. So, if W-PuTTY-CD ever gets covered by a newspaper or PC Mag or some other outlet of substance (i.e., not self-published sources such as blogs) that can contribute to the demonstration of encyclopedic notability. — Scientizzle 18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I will recreate the page in your userspace here. You can work on adding notability sources, and then give me or another admin a heads up to review it. Tanǀ39 16:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Zaafarana palace.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Zaafarana palace.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Puttyschool. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makkah learning center you said "this may not require WP:RS, WP:ORG may require only Secondary_source." However, the second sentence in the relevant section of WP:ORG says "Such sources must be reliable", so I think your interpretation is incorrect. The requirement for reliable sources to establish notability applies to all articles, no matter what additional notability guideline applies to them. I hope that helps. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Davis and welcome Before going into further discussions, I want to set a base, look Davis, I have a lot of friends from UK, and I like UK very much especially Cambridge, but I always face the same problems in discussions with English peoples, which is they always try to prove their point of view by any mean, Honestly this is the only thing I don’t like Any source must be reliable in this manner “it must hold true and verifiable data” Otherwise we are deceiving peoples.--Puttyschool (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to convince you of my point of view because I believe it to be correct. I thought you had misinterpreted Wikipedia policy so I decided to explain what I believe to be the correct interpretation to you, so that in future you'd be acting based on a correct interpretation. Of course I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong; if so I'll be grateful to you for having corrected me for the same reason. I don't really think my nationality has much to do with it.
WP:ORG says sources must be reliable, and links that word to WP:RS. I think this a pretty clear indication that WP:ORG demands sources which are relaible by the definition of WP:RS, not by any other definition of the word 'reliable' such as the one you give above. This is why I said your statement that WP:ORG "may not require WP:RS" is incorrect. Do you see my reasoning?
Also, please feel free to call me Olaf. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Validation
I noticed that you made several comments about "validating" my edits in Wikipedia. While I do not know what you exactly mean by "validating edits", you are always free to take a look into my edits. Check Special:Contributions/Ragib to see the 20k+ edits I have made so far. Feel free to go over them (but don't stalk :) ). Any constructive suggestions about adherence to wikipedia policies are also welcome. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
New photos added of the hospital
Sorry for taking sometime, here is some photos of the Ain Shams University hospitals, promise to try to get some more.--Ashashyou (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC) However i donot know how to adjust the photos size or site inside the page and need some help--Ashashyou (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ashashyou photos are un-presentable, taken by an unprofessional with a low priced camera, Please try to reach a professional to take photo, now I can’t do this--Puttyschool (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The Jewish Internet Defense Force
Hi Puttyschool, you asked for my opinion on your edits to [The Jewish Internet Defense Force]. The edits I saw look fine, your version uses less of the original quotes but is more in keeping with the style of an encylopedia. Unfortunately I've just noticed CJCurrie has got involved with the article and is playing games with it. In this edit [[1]] he removed a reference to an academic article I wrote (published by a well respected think tank). In a later edit [2] he removes rather than fixing a problem with a link. I've left him a note, though I expect it won't make any difference. Oboler (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Oboler, and welcome From your profile your must be open-minded, also seams Cousins!. It needs time to check the history of changes, also facebook, just I visit facebook for the first time yesterday night, and this makes me cares more about this article, in order to prevent any trials to change Wikipedia to another facebook, still I’m trying to create an account on facebook.
Is something wrong with you with this edit[3] This is the last one, I was trying to keep on it, and what about your opinion on rolling back to this version
About CJCurrie, I’m a human, I must sleep @ night, and I can’t monitor it 24hours.
I disagree about using JIDF site as a primary source inorder to use some words!, as you can observe, the site contents is changing according to each edit of this article.
I'm checking more, and waiting for your comments.--Puttyschool (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
We're cousins? Interesting! :) I think the article in it's current form is ok, but still needs work as per the talk page. On Facebook... it CAN NOT be used as reliable source. I'll explain this on the article talk page. There are reasons why it is even LESS reliable than a self published website. Mean time I think we've moved on from here, at least some good came out of it as we now have the various other sources I found about this Facebook group being considered antisemitic. That's helpful at least. Oboler (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you must mean cousins in a more general way... else I should be able to work it out. You have the advantage of knowing my real details while I don't know yours. If you did literally mean cousins... drop me an e-mail about if you wouldn't mind? :) Also thanks for the note, I'm commented on the talk page. I think we have a version clash so merging in more of your original edits into the current would be the best solution. More on talk though. Oboler (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I mean cousins related to Abraham, this means we can solve argument in a family bases, I’m new to wiki, still I don’t know how to send mails, but I’ll drop you a greeting card ASAP :) I'm working in the field of Microprogramming now for more than 12 years, I joined Wikipedia just for fun. Returning back to the article, I rolled it back after adding your references, I think you can start from this point, but please depend on WP:RS Lowering the tone will be great, and care about editors clashes, more on talk page. --Puttyschool (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, on the roll back - done. I've reworded a bit I wasn't entirely happy with before (mostly refering to various publications as editorials... they weren't, an editorial is something very specific) - I don't think you'll have a problem with the changes. I've also work on the background a little, adding more sources and improving the readability. Anyway what I came here to ask was whether you could have a look at the talk page again :) specifically the discussion about the background. Microprogramming to me means MIPS. Haven't done any of that in AGES. :p Also to send e-mail... if you visit my user page it is just a matter of clicking the e-mail button. :) I think we're making progress with this article! Oboler (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don’t have time to check all points right now, but about the enhancements, they are fine, I think the references are reliable sources, if RS is the rule, then it is a challenge for smart persons, and no one can claim about he is not smart enough :)--Puttyschool (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi I think you better take a look here [4]. I think your latest roll back was appropriate actually. It's very impolite to nominate and article we have been workingon for deletion without telling us! Oboler (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The AFD was a good place to collect a lot of POVs; you rushed cause of the shock, the telegraph article alone can do it with carful editing editing. The AFD was closed too fast, anyone can nominate it again for another POV, but with more POVs, you can protect it forever. ;) --Puttyschool (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, can you look at this [5] it looks like another attempt to wipe my report on the topic (and the op-ed) out of the article based on disagreement with the idea the group the JIDF removed is antisemitic. I think a revert is in order but obvioulsy have a COI... here is the last reliable version with the text (which I think is actually worded fine) included [6]. Hoep you have a good weekend. Oboler (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Today is not a weekend, I’m trying to understand Peter cohen point of view, and why he based it on your POV, I don’t know why many editors are against your papers.--Puttyschool (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
salaam! :)
peace be with you, and shalom eleichem.
please teach be how to create a new userbox out of 1s and 0s :). Baruch HaShem, i can now check the interwebs more frequently.
it is good for me to work without pay, could I get a palestinian passport so that I could operate water systems and harvest fire-
wood?
v'alekum salaam, travel with HaShem, under his wing, and his feathers.
Thanks for your nice message :) and your comment about the talk page, also thanks for the what was a new information for me “Palestinian passport”, but is this passport required to operate "water systems and harvest fire", I think your passport can operate it ;), about the user box I borrowed this user box from User:Lifebaka, it was not mine. Thanks again for your nice message. Shalom-Salam--Puttyschool (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It's okay!
No need to apologize, it's not a problem at all. :-) Have fun. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
JIDF
Hi. The news article says that the group was founded when David Appletree saw the offensive Facebook groups. Einsteinbagel "cut and pasted" the sentence from the news article. I just rewrote it so it paraphrased the newspaper article. — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 05:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
The paper concerned is not about the subject of the article. It was referenced together with three other sources to say that a target of the JIDF was considered anti-Semitic. What is left now is a reference to the Anti-defamation League - a more notable entity that User:Oboler and one coming from a similar POV - so describing it. We don't need to clutter the article with a huge amount of stuff that isn't germane to the main subject of the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see [7]. The key point is that this is a detailed information, not clutter. Actual content is being removed by not linking to this report. The same for what was a front page story in the press (the Jewish Week article). These are key bits of information on the topic of the group JIDF removed and they explain why this action was considered news worthy. As mentioned on my talk (link above) the ADL short comment is their opinion which they have made as a result of the sources you removed. Peter you are still trying to raise the bar on RS, this time by claiming clutter, this is ont he same talk section where you were critisized for tryign to remove it because of the national and ethnic nature of the source. This is a real problem and has nothing to do with the article being edited or the reliability of the source. The repeated attend to removed is reducing the ability to assuem good faith dramatically. Oboler (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
JIDF
Similar organizations/pressure groups....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to say I disagree with this... Hasbara has a particular meaning. This is not it. It is also an attempt to lable those dealign with antisemitism as simply engaging is partisan politics rather than as combatting racism. (will copy to Kennedy3's talk page as well) Oboler (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Oboler, above. Furthermore, I fear that Ashley has a very heavily biased POV and might be trying to vandalize the JIDF page. Thank you for keeping an eye on it. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Pirani Ameena Begum AfD
Thank you for your help and strong support! Sergey Moskalev (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Aram Naharaim
The version that lasted 18 days (as opposed to the entire history of the article before that) is the pov version, but anything that can actually be reliably referenced can always be re-added to the existing version, and should be, if they satisfy the citation-needed tags. Just please don't switch back to the long version, because it is far from neutral or encyclopedic. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Also the "references" in that version are almost exclusively Bible verses, not actual reliable sources. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting, though I didn't read the full article. Is there something specific you'd like to point out? justinfr (talk/contribs) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing more than why I rolled it back«PuTTYSchOOL 23:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
JIDF Article
Hi Putty. I spent a lot of time discussing those edits in the article's talk section. If you could please have a look and discuss it before reverting again, I'd appreciate it. I believe the photo issue has been resolved and in light of all the other "contextual" information, it is important to emphasize why the JIDF seized the group. I'd appreciate it if you could please have a look and discuss rather than reverting all my edits in which I have spent considerable time trying to figure out. Thanks. --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Putty, I really don't appreciate you reverting that edit without trying to build consensus upon the situation and discussing it. I also feel your comment was anti-semitic (regarding "Jpedia.") Completely uncalled for and I believe you owe me (and all Jews on Wikipedia) an apology. My editing had nothing to do with Judaism or being Jewish. I am trying to make the article better and to educate readers and you are clearly trying to interfere in my effort to do so, without trying to collaborate or build consensus. Your reversions only inspire edit wars. Many people agreed that the photo was helpful, and now that it has the proper licensing, it should be fine. The other thing I added was important as well. I'm very disappointed that you had to go in and revert this w/out discussing it.--Einsteindonut (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Einsteindonut, the article was very stable during the last week, only few were changing a word, or sometime a character in a word, now you are trying to return us the start point, I don’t care about your image, but your justification are far away from being reasonable, so you have to wait may be your justifications are accepted by Wikipedia, Cheers«PuTTYSchOOL 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
aharon42 offer for help in translation
Puttyschool, I noticed on the JIDF page that you are having difficulties expressing yourself in english. I speak English, Spanish, and am working on Arabic.. I would be happy to help you with any translations that you need if I can.. I know you have been making some strong objections but as of right now they do not seem logical.. I thought it might be due to language barriers. Also, could you hold off on editing the JIDF page and just work this out on the discussion page until a concensus has been reached. I advised Eisteindounut to also stay on the discussion page. With respect aharon42 (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Aharon42 thanks a lot for kindly offering helping me, You welcomed«PuTTYSchOOL 15:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
JPedia
Hi. I wanted to let you know that your comment about JPedia was out of line. I'm not sure what you intended when you wrote it, but it seems very offensive, as if you're suggesting that Einsteindonut and others are twisting Wikipedia to a Jewish point of view.
Please try to remain civil even when you think another editor is butchering an article. The best course of action would be to discuss your differences with Einsteindonut on the article's talk page, instead of reverting his/her edits with nasty edit summaries. Please consider taking that approach in the future. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Putty School. Lets just focus on using kind, supportive words with one another and then these issues wont come up. Im new so I know its hard, thats why I keep suggesting we collaborate on a neutral, boring WP article together. It wont stir up any strong feelings and then we can get some real work done. Cheers aharon42 (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,. I would second comments here and elsewhere that you should tone things down a bit. The "sock puppets" were not active at the same time as each other and claims of abuse commected with them are tenuous to say the least. ED's "disruptive" edit to the ANI board were the result of an edit clash not of malice. I happen to be closer to you than to him on the substantive content issues, but things aren't helped by OTT accusations.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peter, you know, I'm open minded, but I want to set a limit to the method Einsteindonut is using, at the same time I did not mean by JPedia the meaning of JewishPedia which he is trying to prove, you know this is not his first trial with me, he used this method with many editors before me. You can follow the article history, I only change when I found something clearly wrong and against the rules, other than this article for me is like other 2,500,000 articles, I don't belong to the left or right side of the conflict.«PuTTYSchOOL 22:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Puttyschool. I understand your frustrations with Einsteindonut. However, please try to see things from his perspective for a moment. Given the history of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about "Jews owning the media", can't you see how a term like "JPedia" might give offense to someone Jewish who interprets it as an accusation that Jews control Wikipedia? Even if that is not what you meant by the term, can't you see how the use of the term could be misunderstood and give offense? As a Jew, myself, I find your choice of the term to be in very poor taste, however, I will trust that you did not mean for the term to be interpreted in that way. In order to improve relations between you and Einsteindonut, will you not at least apologize for the poor choice of a term and for giving offense, though it was unintentional? Thank you. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Michael Safyan I must confess that I can’t understand the relation between the “J” and Jews, I took the ”J” from the “J”Post nothing more. I’m searching the internet to find a relation that can make me see from your point of view, till now I did not find, you have to know that I don’t know too much about politics in ME nor the I/P conflict issues, I know only the main lines without going deep in details, I’m spending the limited amounted of time that I can afford navigating Oblear sites and other side sites in order to understand both sides POVs. But if I found that your POV is right then I must apologize for the poor choice of the term, to you and all other Jews, as I already did for the misunderstanding of the term, but for Einsteindonut remember his long history with me and other editors and as you can see, yesterday I stopped argument with Einsteindonut at AN/I according to Malik Shabazz Request, then in the early morning I found that he did not stopped attacking (Me/Egyptians/Arabs/Christians/Muslims/....all except Jews) without any logical reason in the AN/I, so what will you do when you found someone not respecting you? Thank you and Best Regards.«PuTTYSchOOL 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The Jerusalem Post is somewhat of an exception, with "J" standing for "Jerusalem". Many Jewish organizations, such as the Jewish Community Center (JCC), the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC), the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), etc. all begin with "J" as an abbreviation for "Jewish". This has less to do wit politics in the Middle East or Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues; rather, this has to do with a history of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including that "Jews own the media"; a Google search for Jews control the media turns up quite a number of results perpetuating this libel. I won't link directly to the articles, since I don't want to boost their rating in Google, but the "Jew Watch...", "Who controls U.S. media", and "Zionist control of the media..." articles are prime examples of these sorts of anti-Semitic diatribes. The point is that many if not most Jews -- ok, maybe I should qualify this with "self-identifying", "affiliated", or "practicing" -- are aware of their history of persecution and of the various stereotypes, misstatements, and demonizations applied to Jews. When using a blend which incorporates "Jewish" or some aspect of "Jewish" with the name of a news source (such as "the Jew York Times", "JPedia", etc.), Jewish viewers will immediately be reminded of the "Jews control the media" canard. I am not asking you to apologize for your POV, just for the poor choice of the term. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, Michael. "Who controls the U.S. media?" is a legitimate question. From my vantage, you are using the "anti-Semitic diatribe" and "canard" labels to censor a necessary discussion. A climate of censorship makes WP:NPOV unattainable. A better strategy, I believe, is to air the issues fully. -- NonZionist (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
So you think it is perfectly okay to accuse "the Jews" of owning the media? Furthermore, "who controls the U.S. media?" is not a legitimate question as it assumes in the question, itself, that a single person or entity controls the media. A better, more nuanced, and more legitimate question might be: "What news sources exist in the U.S.? What news sources are most frequently consumed in the U.S.? What is the nature of these news sources -- are they individuals, individually owned businesses, partnerships, LLCs, corporations, etc.? What are the motivations of the various news sources -- are they for profit, are they foundations with a specific interest, are they funded by the government, etc.? Do these news sources interact and, if so, how? etc." The question "who controls the media?" is unscholarly, makes false assumptions, and is in no way legitimate. The legitimacy of the question aside, you are making the false assumption that Wikipedia promotes "free speech." Wikipedia does not support "free speech", neither in the form in which it exists in the United States (i.e. you can say anything so long as it does not endanger the public) nor in the form in which it exists in Europe (i.e. you can say anything you want so long as it does not endanger the public and does not qualify as "hate speech"). On Wikipedia articles, the only "speech" (really text, not speech) that is permitted is that which is neutral and verifiable with reliable sources. On talk pages, anything which attacks other users, fails to assume good faith, constitutes soap-boxing, etc. are prohibited. In general, Wikipedia policy prohibits material which contributes to a hostile editing environment (e.g. harrassment). If you think that statements to the effect that "the Jews control the media" should be permitted or tolerated on Wikipedia, then you are applying an unequal standard, in that you are suggesting that statements which generate an environment which is antagonistic to Jewish editors is permissible whereas statements which generate an antagonistic environment towards any other religious/national/ethnic/racial/... group are prohibited. If you think that Wikipedia should adopt the concept of "free speech" as it is practiced in the U.S., then there is some legitimacy to that position; however, that is not the current policy on Wikipedia and adopting such a policy would lead to a severe degradation of the articles and discussions on Wikipedia. Please see WP:FREESPEECH. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, a poisonous censorial climate is inimical to the creation of a good encyclopedia. I made no mention of political rights: WP:FREE, which I have read, is not relevant here.
Although truth is not an explicit Wikipedia aim, an encyclopedia that tells the truth is far more useful than an encyclopedia that lies. I want Wikipedia to be useful: That's why I resist attempts to censor and distort the discussion.
Your citing of "The Jews" is a bugaboo or strawman: Because ethnic groups are diverse, there are few valid generalizations that can be made about them. The same does not apply to highly organized political groups, however, and that perhaps is your real fear: that we will identify certain political groups or movements that dominate the Establishment media.
Your fear of the outcome notwithstanding, we need to be free to ask the question. It is very unlikely that the question will implicate an entire ethnic group, but if it does, we need to be free to state that truth. Otherwise we end up in the world of 1984, where political pressure forces us to report that "two plus two equals five". No encyclopedia worth its salt can afford to be put in that position. Freedom, not censorship, is the wave of the future. -- NonZionist (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Enough. I will not lower myself to arguing with one such as you. Know this, however. It was not the "reason" and "intelligence" of the German people which led them to discover the "truth" of the "inferiority" of Jews and non-Aryans. It was the madness of hate, indoctrination, and -- most importantly -- the finding of a scapegoat which led them to these "truths". I am not afraid of people discovering the truth. If only people listened to their reason, sought the truth, and found it --- then I would have nothing to fear. No. I fear that man will not use his reason. I fear that man will choose madness over reason, and I fear the death, devastation, destruction, and despair which will inevitably follow such a choice. I pray that you will eventually come to see reason and will eventually recognize the pain, hurt, and disappointment caused by your words. Until then, I have nothing more to say to you. Puttyschool, sorry for taking up so much of your talkpage. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Your prayers have been answered: I DO see reason. I argue above that an encyclopedia needs to be based on REASON. It is REASON that tells me to champion freedom and EQUAL rights. It is REASON that tells me to OPPOSE indocrination and scapegoating. Reason is not a threat.
I think your view of me is shaped by ideology. You are seeing and fearing something that is not there. You say you will not "lower yourself" to my level: That suggests that YOU are the one who embraces inferiority and ethnic supremacy. It is not my devotion to reason and truth that causes you "pain, hurt, and disappointment": It is your own attachment to an untenable political ideology.
I am eager to reach an accord with you. But that accord cannot be based on surrender to a fascistic ideology. I invite you to discover the philosophy of freedom and equality. It will then become much easier for us to work together here. -- NonZionist (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
AN/I
Please stop your argument with Einsteindonut at AN/I. At this point you're not discussing Wikipedia or WP-related issues. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 22:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I second Malik here. You do not appear to fully appreciate that there are many people who overlook, control, and examine slowly what is going over when disputes occur. Instant solutions are not available. If one has a grievance, one registers a complaint. It makes a poor impression to press, insist, and, as now, try to push admins further. Action has been taken, it will be reviewed. They have vast experience, we do not. They generally know what is the proper thing to do, and do not require advice. Secondly, some people like argument, and 'bait', hoping the other person will be exasperated to the point of saying something incautious. This is precisely what occurred with you. You must learn to recognize this, and not 'rise to the bait'. Good luck Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Puttyschool (Hi Nishidani). I've been following the dispute at WP:ANI. I just wanted to give you a bit advice, based on my own difficulties with sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting users in the past. It took my getting blocked four times for WP:3RR before learning not to let people bait me into breaking Wiki rules (in my case, edit-warring). I understand why you would be angry after discovering that those opposing your edits are in fact one person creating the appearance of many, but try not to harp on it too much. Also, never stoop to making personal attacks. I noticed a couple of the blocked sockpuppet accounts referred to your Egyptian ethnicity repeatedly in their edit summaries in a derogatory fashion, and no one chided them for that. But that does not mean you too should refer to their ethnicities, as in your Jpedia comment. There is all kinds of bias and double-standards in the way things get applied here, but usually reason has a way of prevailing if you stick to the high road. Okay? Welcome my friend. If you need any help or advice, do not hesitate to ask. Tiamuttalk 15:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
request
Hi there Puttyschool. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Merger of WikiProject Free Software and WikiProject Software
Un-encyclopedic words ("Murder and Genocide") in the JIDF Article
Putty, you have been warned [9] by people to please stop vandalizing the JIDF article. "Murder and Genocide" is in a cited source and you continue to try to remove it. [10]. There are many other articles which need work. I'm not sure why you continue to try to take out important cited elements from the JIDF article and try to add things that are not necessary. Just because you do not like the JIDF[11], and don't feel that they should be in Wikipedia at all, it does not mean that you should try to take out important information about them in order for casual readers to get a neutral understanding of the organization. --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
welcome back Einsteindonut, I hope this time without WP:OR, a) I don’t have enough time for all wikipidian articles that needs work, but I understood this one as I followed from the first AFD. b) [based on the link I posted in talk page , I’m building my POV. c) Till now I did not see WP:MALIK, but I'll take in consederation after I found it «PuTTYSchOOL 19:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
They might be "un-encyclopedic" words but they are a direct quote of the JIDF from a reliable source. They also add significantly to the article as they explain the true motivations behind the JIDF's action. The "pull down menu" was not the reason they acted against the group. I had a big problem with that being in the article. However, I found that quote and added it originally since it helped "balance" it out and explain the JIDF's true motivation for action. Again, just because you disagree with the JIDF or that there should be an article on the JIDF, it does not mean that the article should be inaccurate and not strive for the truth of the matter. To do otherwise would be an injustice unto Wikipedia readers. Thank you for welcoming me back. The break was good, but they are wrong about "Sax" being a sock of mine. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You always welcomed (but without WP:OR), I asked to check J Hof, the two words are far away from what is really happening, and are not true Or give accurate representations, who told you that I’m against all contacts of the article(WP:OR), It is very clear that I’m against only two words in the article «PuTTYSchOOL 20:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with ED on this. The words are in quotes and are the most powerful explanation given by the JIDF and should be included. --Peter cohen (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "who told me" that you are against the JIDF, it is obvious in your edit history and your request for "STRONG DELETE" upon its arrival. You have been intent on taking out key facts (supported by reliable sources) from the article since the beginning. I have not been bringing any "OR" into anything. I'm not sure what you mean. We are talking about a direct quote from a reliable source. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
My comment on the first AFD, was "SPEEDY DELETE, ASAP" till now; I can’t imagine how this old edit of the article, received votes on keeping it.«PuTTYSchOOL 19:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought that the discussion at AN/I was sufficient warning. If you make another reversion to the article, I will recommend that you be blocked. — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Malik, I reverted as I failed to find a WP:RS reference, But I think M. Sofyan Found a reference«PuTTYSchOOL 20:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
