User talk:Honorsteem

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Reductio ad Hitlerum, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks. See my contribution on the talk page there. -- Honorsteem (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand your argument; sure, eugenics is a bad thing and it is churlish to dismiss debate of it as "reductio ad Hitlerum". All I'm drawing your attention to is the need for clarity and sourcing - a Wikipedia article shouldn't say "there has been criticism, concern and trouble regarding this subject, but we're not going to tell you where", it should say "person X has criticised it, group Y is concerned about it, and newspaper Z regarded it as 'troubling'". WP:WEASEL has a bit more about this. It's our duty to the reader to tell them where a reaction is coming from, and if it's seeming to come from nowhere (either because it's the opinion of the editor writing the sentence, or because it's "common sense"), we need to take a look through some newspapers and find someone who's actually said it. Does this sound reasonable? --McGeddon (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'd add that the article doesn't really need a "criticism" section - reductio ad Hitlerum is clearly presented as a "fallacy" throughout, rather than a useful and ironclad argumentative tool. --McGeddon (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was more referring to the using of the term. If someone says "X is like the nazi's" - where X is a valid point, and then the opponent else says, "Hah! RaH!" - then the discussion is terminated. -- 11:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, people can incorrectly mistake a reasonable argument for a reductio ad Hitlerum (just as a stupid person can misidentify any argument to be any fallacy in the book), but as I say, you'll need to provide a source that's considered this particular instance remarkable, if it's going to be written about in an encyclopedia. --McGeddon (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Discussion moved to Talk:Daniel Pipes#Moved conversation -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Electricity sector in the United Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Big Six

Nuclear energy in the Netherlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reprocessing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Honorsteem. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 18:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honorsteem, I added a comment to the ANI thread that I hope you will find of interest. Groeten, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I indefinitely blocked you for the disruptive editing and hounding issues. The clean start problems only add fuel to the fire. If you would like to appeal this block please place {{Unblock|Your Reason for being unblocked}} on your talk page. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Honorsteem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As for "One to the pillars of clean starts is that an editor leaves the areas that he was once editing in.": I've never issued the Jewish-topics before with my old account (as far as Im aware of). Nobody asked me for my old account details, though, so Im surprised by your conclusion?
Regarding the hounding accusation, it was dealt with at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Jayjg_accusing_me_of_wikihounding.
As for formal reasoning, I have not been notified there was a case against me at AN/I. The topic with moving the thread was resolved as it turned out I had all right to do so.
To me this seems like dirty case where Jayjg can't get his way the first time (deleting his moved comments), and gets back this way, comfortably shutting me down at List of Jewish Nobel laureates. If this is tolerated, I indeed have no business on Wikipedia. -- Honorsteem (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. It does appear that you are not WP:CLEANSTART, but actually improperly using alternate accounts at this time. I suggest you re-read WP:CLEANSTART and WP:ALTERNATE to understand the differences, and try to be a little less battleground-like in your on-wiki actions. This is a collaborative project, and your actions overall do not suggest you understand this. Please do not submit another request until the ANI thread has finished, and you're prepared to follow the suggestions that come from there (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am aware of NOTTHEM, did you read the my actual unblock request? Question: Is it then okay for being blocked when the ANI thread is not yet finished? How am I supposed to make my case? -- 11:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The topic with moving the thread was resolved as it turned out I had all right to do so. - No, you do not and did not have the right to do so. And yes, being blocked while the AN/I thread is running is perfectly fine, especially since the issue here is improper use of alternate accounts - i.e sockpuppetry - in violation of the claimed WP:CLEANSTART. The continued insistence that you are cleanstarting, in the face of evidence to the contrary (not the least of which being this...), doesn't help your case. The claim I have not been notified there was a case against me at AN/I is verifiably false, as directly above Drmies pointed your attention to it following his raising the cleanstart issues there, and you even posted there after the cleanstart issues were raised - to attempt to summarily dismiss them. If you ignored AN/I after your attempt to say This issue is now closed - something you did not have the "right" to do - that's your fault, not theirs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks for getting back to me.

About the serviceaward: on WP:SVC it states "These awards are unofficial – displaying the wrong one carries no penalty, and displaying the right one does not indicate authority or competence.". Please explain me what I did wrong?
Did I not have the right to move the topic from my user page? That seems to have been the outcome of that part of the thread.
I'm sorry I was not aware of special etiquette ruling ANI (it is my first case there) and in other on-line forums this would be a case of thread hijacking. Also, I don't see how my interpretation has been disruptive?

So I apologize for incorrectly stating the AN/I discussion was closed.

Now Drmies published my old user name, can you please in more detail tell me how I perverted WP:CLEANSTART? It still says A user who is not under current restrictions or blocks may stop using their current account and start using a new one. I gave a short and precise summary of my situation, and also my grounds for switching accounts here and I felt there was nothing more to say about it, so I WP:LETGO. For now I still do not see how my clean start invalidated my participation at the discussion of either the Jewish lists or WP/ANI, or, even worse, was disruptive.
Regarding the Hounding complaint, I refer again to the Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance-link given above. Editors there say more wise sensible things then I can. I admit my attention was drawn to the topic through Jayjg's edits, but to me, hounding indicates some kind of structural behaviour which I do not show. Also, it seems to me fair for first being warned, before being blocked indefinitely?
My statement that I had not been formally notified that there was a case against me at AN/I was a procedural point and you are welcome to disagree.
I was not aware I have been (also) blocked of breaching the sock-puppet policy. Drmies seems to collaborate that. Please elaborate? I deny accusations of sock puppetry. -- Honorsteem (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I won't tackle the unblock request, but I do want to say a few things. Contrary to your assertion, this note at ANI does not satisfy the clean start requirement, letter or spirit. You didn't disclose, you didn't put a notice on the other user/talk pages, you didn't place a redirect, nothing like that, and you did use User:Eiland to make another edit in January. That you wanted to make that edit in itself is understandable--someone asked you something--but it would have been so much better had you been clear that this was a retired account (which, by definition, it is since you evoked clean start). And I gave you ample opportunity at ANI to do so; why you didn't take me up on it is a mystery to me, and it does suggest there is something hidden. Couple all that with the 78,000 edit service badge, or whatever the amount was, and there is a cloud hanging over your clean start, a suggestion that you are avoiding scrutiny (note where the shortcut WP:SCRUTINY goes).
I haven't delved into the edits you made before and after, but I am probably going to have a look at them to see if your claim is correct, that you haven't gone back to contentious areas with the new name ("will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes").
For the life of me, I don't understand why you didn't meet the simple requirements of clean start, not even after this became in issue in the thread. BTW, of course that wasn't a hijacking: I cited WP:BOOMERANG, and those boomerangs fly all over the place at ANI--it is to be expected. You seemed to have some grudge against me, though I don't think we ever met--still, the advice I gave you was solid and the questions I asked were fair. I did notify you and tried to communicate with you, and that there was no good response just adds to the cloud of suspicion. I have no desire to see you blocked: I don't even know you, and I don't edit (I think) in the areas where you are active. I do have a desire to see that things are done in daylight. If you wish to be unblocked, I think the first thing you have to do is take care of the old accounts, one way or another (but I suggested this at ANI already, here, six days ago). I have nothing to do with your block on the Dutch pedia, and I don't even care. But as long as you don't understand, or don't acknowledge, that your behavior is what got this going, and to which extent a start is a clean start is determined by behavior. I've gone on too long; I hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beste DRMIES,

I don't think you 100% understand the clean start-idea? IMO: Not to be identified anymore with a (clean) old account. It would kind of defeat its purpose by making reference from the old or the new account to each other, now would it? And come on, my edit in January, get a life, will you? "The spirit of the clean start policy"... Also, do get in line with the other editors above with "well earned service badges", and feel free to complain on my not so well earned, and totally pointless service award.
Your offer to disclose to others, by mail, my old account credentials - or to even hash my password! - after I myself had offered exactly the same thing (the disclosure by mail) kind of lit the smoldering fire (do note other "uninvolved?" editors showing up at ANI). As nobody asked me by mail - and I assume nobody asked you? - I am even more appalled by you putting it on AN/I, blowing indeed this clean start. If that is the last of it I guess I'll ask the arbcom about it (how a donkey i can be). Maybe I'll propose User talk:KevinPerros to bundle our cases. Honorsteem (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you purposely misreading me? I didn't say I would hash your password; I suggested you do it. You could put a redirect on the old user page--some people do that--but I didn't say you have to. In fact, let me cite from the diff linked above: "Honorsteem, let me propose the following: go to your old accounts, properly logged in as that account, and put "retired" on them, and maybe blank the talk pages. You can even scramble the passwords." That's all. That's all you had to do. Instead, you don't do any of those things, and the "retired" part is mandated by WP:CLEANSTART: "To reduce the chance of misunderstandings, you should note on the user page of the old account that it is inactive, by using the {{retired}} tag or leaving some other message"--which you obviously didn't. You blew your own clean start, by allowing for suspicion of socking. And to be quite precise about it, you did sock, since you did use two accounts: Eiland made an edit in January--this one, while the first Honorsteem edit, this one, predates that by two months.

But I've said all this before. Maybe there's a language barrier here. Maybe you don't want to see what CLEANSTART says. Maybe WP:IDHT is the appropriate acronym to link to. You can complain about my putting this up at ANI all you want, but a. I have a right to and b. you invited this yourself, by charging someone with hounding, a charge which by its very definition will invite scrutiny! And not only did that claim turn out to be unfounded (at least, not supported by the community), but the block made on your account was endorsed without a single editor speaking out against it.

Now, I don't know what case you're thinking of bringing up to ArbCom, but Perros has nothing to do with it--they're not blocked, currently, and they were blocked for something entirely different, so I can only assume that you want to charge Jay with something: an RfC/U would be the proper route, but I think you'll stand little chance of succeeding. But don't let me ruin your party in advance. I hope you can find someone to do the legwork for you; obviously Eiland and Honormeets won't be able to. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I misread your hashing suggestion. The next part read If you like, I [Drmies] can block them, and then you can never be suspected of foul play again with those accounts, so thats maybe the source of my misunderstanding. FYI: I didn't complain at wikipedia etiquette, I just corroborated the complaints made by Gsonnenf. I think it is childish to complain on such a forum, but when I saw that complaint, I thought there might be some kind of pattern, so I mentioned it. Also, your initial cleanstart complaints date from before all that (17-2 vs 21-2), so I don't really see the causality you seem to suggest? As far as I can judge, the only reason the complaint there isn't going any further is because I am blocked (hence I am a bad guy) and Jayjg already had issue with CarelMooreDC, so we are seeing some kind of circular argument here, and I don't want to waste too much time on it. (Oh, and I never complained of hounding myself (or did I?) but I guess you mistook?)
Your next point, I have a different interpretation of the phrase "To reduce the chance of misunderstandings, you should note on the user page of the old account that it is inactive." But then again, I am not a native, so complicated grammatical structures might be too much for me. My teacher told me 'must' is used in case of absolute obligations? should is more like "ought to"? Until now it doesn't seem that anybody was confused by my inactive old account so I believe you are chasing a ghost, but indeed, that is your right. Finally, please read Wikipedia:Sock puppet and tell me what was misleading or deceiving in those edits from January. And you yourself write before I wasn't committing Sock puppet abuse, right?) I guess I just couldn't be bothered to login and logout, just like often editors cant be bothered to login to post a minor remark. Please charge me with something more substantial next time or just leave me in peace. -- Honorsteem (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2nd, last attempt

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Honorsteem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please review above thread.

Decline reason:

Above thread reviewed - violation of WP:CLEANSTART still not addressed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just to elaborate a little (after email request). Re-use of old account, carrying on a total edit count for all accounts, not "retiring" old accounts, all add up to failure to properly follow WP:CLEANSTART - it really is a "spirit" thing too, and what I think we are not seeing is a commitment to make a proper break with the past. However, if we saw such a commitment, with old accounts put permanently beyond use (mark "retired", and scramble the passwords or ask for them to be blocked with no Talk page or email access), start an edit count afresh from the new account, commit to drop any past disputes and not revisit old areas, then I'd support an unblock if someone else chose to do it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I was just looking at Template talk:Retired, also "This user has permanently left wikipedia" seems to be a bit misguided? Anyway, I never really meant to make a clean start, I just wanted to change my user name, and to avoid sock puppet confusion - as that my first edits on my new account would seem to be that of an experienced editor - I added the reference to clean start. I thought I was being transparent, but it seems I've been waking dogs with that. So I'll remove the Clean start-reference from my user page, and insist on my right to have a WP:SOCK#LEGIT. In fact, I don't regret any of my previous actd in my old account, so there is no need. In retrospect it would have been wiser to ask for an account name change, but I didn't know of that option. -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I cant, I'm blocked. In fact, suggesting that I would change something on my alternative user page with my alternative login, that would be block circumvention? -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to go ahead with Cleanstart "Retired" templates as suggested by reviewing admins, I don't think that would be counted as block evasion. However, now that you have said that you do not wish to go with Cleanstart, any current use of alternate accounts while blocked on this one would indeed be considered evasion. I suggest what you need to do is make a fresh unblock request here, explaining your new intentions and addressing the block reason in the light of them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you estimate there would be valid complains about socking? -- Honorsteem (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say - but to avoid the risk, I'd suggest you propose your course of action here first and only act when/if you get unblocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

February 26

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Honorsteem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wanted to change my previous username due to personal privacy concerns, and unaware of the option to actually change an account name, I opened the current Honorsteem-account.
In order not to raise suspicion of sockpuppeteering - as my initial edits would clearly be those of an experienced editor, I put a reference to WP:CLEANSTART on my user page (its still there). That, however seemed to be a little bit too much in good faith, as at the first case where I asked for administrator assistance, after a few on-topic answers, the case was turned towards my allegedly not-so-clean-start, and I got blocked. Indeed, I admit, I have not intention to leave old topics I use to work on (one condition), and I have not learned from past mistakes (another) - as I have never breached serious policy with my old account! So therefore I think it is time to retract my claim to a clean start - I just find out that it is actually a fork from the sock puppet page! Guilty by association? - and just leave it as is: a user with a new account. I do not want to be associated with my old username, but there seems to be no policy suitable to support that. But I think that as long as I do not use my old, dormant account to disrupt the editorial process, fake votes, the usual sock puppet shebang, there should really be nothing to worry about?
I might put some kind of notice on my user page, but the last time I did got me into this whole mess in the first place, so maybe I better not. I am open for suggestions though (only not for those of 2x4-Drmies :). I apologize for the confusion raised. Honorsteem (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a procedural decline. I think the best thing in this situation would be to follow BWilkins' suggestion below - ie contact him by email with details of the old account; that account is indef blocked; this account is unblocked. This would allow you to get back to editing again with a clean start, and with minimal attention drawn to the fact. If you are unwilling to do so, then I see no reason for this account to be unblocked. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A cleanstart does not permit you to return to the articles that you used to edit. So, if you intend to edit in those areas, then it's not the right choice for you. So, as long as you're abandoning that claim, then let's move forward. First: we will need to block your original dormant account, permanently - the block log can state that it was at your request, not as a result of an issue (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As most of this was due to confusion over Cleanstart, which Honorsteem does not now wish to pursue, I'd be happy to support a block of the original account (with such a comment in the log) and an unblock of this account -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand the need to block my dormant account? I am aware of wikipedia policy, and I will not sock puppet, just like I adhere to the rest of WP policy. To ask for a block of my dormant account seems to me to suggest I might not able to control myself? -- Honorsteem (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would see it as a show of good faith on your part more than anything - and I'm not saying I would oppose unblock if you did not agree to it, just that your agreement would get you my speedy support -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning, but as per Wikipedia:BLOCK#Self-requested blocks I do not think blocks are meant for that. Please see it from my point of view, where I am already in this mess, and now I have to self-request a block, that would still feel like admitting I am wrong. -- 14:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all true. I recently blocked someone's alternate account because they did accidentally screw up their clean start. I personally won't unblock without blocking the original (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to get rid of that whole Clean start business. -- Honorsteem (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same thought here - if you ask for your old account to be blocked, I wouldn't see it as any admission of wrongdoing, and I don't think anyone else would. And if you went with that route, I'd be happy to help you remove any of the Cleanstart stuff that might be left behind on the old one. I think BWilkins is being very reasonable here - block the old one, unblock this one, remove any Cleanstart things that are left, and go forward with this new account (complete with "Master Editor IV" status :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree - I don't want to waste any more of your time - but I do want my objection to be duly noted in the block log, and that I only conceded to the block upon your suggestion. Thanks. -- Honorsteem (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you insane? All I'll put in the block log is "At the request of the editor" ... then it draws absolutely zero attention to the block whatsoever. Since I don't want to draw more attention to it, e-mail me the account name and a link to where it was discussed at AN/ANI and I'll take care of it AND this unblock at the same time - all quiet-like (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can await the opinion of a third moderator? -- Honorsteem (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your email (which I will reply to here), if you do not want a clean start, no worries - disclose your old account name here, that can be blocked and this one unblocked (depending on the specific reason for the old block, obviously!). The block log would not reflect that this was at your request - that's not the purpose of the log. If you don't want to disclose your old user name publicly (often a perfectly reasonable request) then you will need to contact Bwilkins directly with the name of your old account, so that it can be blocked and this one unblocked. The way I see it, these are your two choices. To clarify:
1. Disclose your old username here, admins can then block that account and unblock this account if suitable
2. Disclose your old username to BWilkins via email, he can then block that account and unblock this account if suitable.

If you do neither, then this account will not be unblocked - hence the procedural decline of your unblock request. When you said "Maybe we can await the opinion of a third moderator", I assumed you meant another, uninvolved admin - which would be me! My opinion was given (and now clarified). I trust this helps. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A further thought - the reason for blocking the old account isn't to say "we don't trust you" - but you have no need for it, and any open, unused account is vulnerable to hacking. Blocking ensures that it can't be used by anyone, yourself included. It is not a reflection upon you, but standard operation. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the old account not already identified further up this page? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe it is. However, in the interests of covering my ass, once the e-mail is on file in my inbox, I will block it, and unblock this one - without even the need of an additional unblock request. Of course, if the e-mail arrives while I'm actually working/sleeping/boinking or anything else that takes time, the unblock may be delayed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Elektriciteits Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

From your post at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 February 21 I believe you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is and isn't copyrightable. When I've dealt with your listing I've left a longish response which I suggest you read. If you have any other questions feel free to post here or on my talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what about for example Emil Lederer where the only source for his jewishness is jinfo.org? I read If they are creative in selection or presentation, information is usable but only if presentation and selection are significantly altered. A list of Jewish economist seems to be not much different from List_of_Jewish American_economists? Seems to me a creative conclusion to decide on his jewishness without strong sources? On the German wikipedia page there is nothing about his religion, only that he was not aryan.-- Honorsteem (talk) 20:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask User:Moonriddengirl to take a look as I've obviously not explained in a way that you get what I'm trying to say and I'm struggling to think of a way of expressing it differently. Dpmuk (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) If they're asserting that it is a fact that he is Jewish, they can't own that fact...no matter how much work they might have put into uncovering it. (Even if they're wrong, if they assert that it is fact, they don't own it.) The United States law that governs us does not recognize sweat of the brow; facts are free for everybody.

Creativity comes in with lists that narrow facts into creative ways. A list of "Handsome Jewish American economists" is very creative, since handsomeness (and lack thereof) are not facts, but opinions. A list of Jewish American economists that seeks to be comprehensive is, no matter how labor intensive, not creative. Narrowing that list in uncreative ways (for instance, Jewish American economists of the 21st century; Living Jewish American economists; Award-winning Jewish American economists) would also not be creative.

I've tried to explain some of these concepts a bit at User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists, but haven't been able to complete that document because of some hold-up in determining best practices on Wikipedia for creative lists. But it may still prove helpful to you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I guess the diffuclty here is that Jew is no clear cocept, read Who is a Jew, and therefore it might well be that to say this or that person is a Jew can be seen as a creative activity, but something tells me Im arguing way to much into a legal swamp now.... --- 11:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Party for Freedom

Hi, I've just reverted the greater part of your recent edits on this article. I think things such as their programme points are worth mentioning as such in the article (whatever you may think of them personally). Regards, The Wiki ghost (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the paragraph on the party points was taking straight from the party program which is WP:PRIMARY source, and we are not to use those on wikipedia but in a very limited set of circumstances. I also indicated that in the edit summary. If you find a secondary source sumarizing the party program I have nothing against it. -- 14:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If you just describe the party program, then it is ok to use primary sources. --va c io 19:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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. The thread is Honorsteem again. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. It is fairly clear from the edits highlighted in the WP:ANI thread linked above that you are not here to edit collegially. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, even though it was not a cleanstart, the fricking WP:BATTLE mentality could not continue. WTF were you thinking? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg's ANI request for administrative action

It's fairly clear this editor is not here to edit collegially; therefore, blocked indef. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Honorsteem (talk · contribs) opened a discussion on this board a couple of weeks ago (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive740#Deleting (references to) moved comments on Talk:Daniel_Pipes) and (in a unanimous decision) was eventually blocked for "his abuse of clean start, disruptive editing and the fairly well supported idea that [h]e is hounding Jayjg". Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive740#Honorsteem_Blocked. He asked to be unblocked on his talk page, and after several attempts at getting unblocked, which failed because of his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and WP:NOTTHEM violations, he was eventually unblocked. He very first article edit was to revert me at List of Jewish Nobel Laureates, as was his third edit at Party for Freedom.
Regarding the List of Jewish Nobel Laureates article, after his revert was in turn reverted by someone else (he objected to having List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients as a "See also"), he then decided to add a number of other links, including a link to List of Jewish American mobsters.[1] There are, of course, dozens of lists of Jews on Wikipedia; the link to this specific article, out of all of them, is quite obviously just combative and needless provocation.
Regarding the Party for Freedom article, the material itself is an obvious WP:BLP violation, as he knows from the earlier discussion on his Talk: page. Moreover, his insertion uses Wikipedia's voice to describe to specific individuals as "right-wing" and "anti-Muslim", something their Wikipedia biographies obviously do not do.

It appears to me that Honorsteem has learned nothing from the earlier AN/I thread or the discussions on his Talk: page; on the contrary, he seems to still view Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I suggest that further administrative action is appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As this block was settled in 27 minutes, I had not the time to react on it, so now here:

As the Party for Freedom: The paragraph I readded - the one Jayjg removed just before - was one I added myself three weeks or so ago, together with similar content to the pages of David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes. Jayjg initially removed the content there, but after some intense debate - I also took it to ANI - now a slightly rewritten phrase sits in Pipes and Horowitz' pages. After I undid Jayjg's removal on the Party for Freedom page, I asked him why on his talk page, but he only got back to me through the ANI thread (the hounding reference is a result from this thread at Wikiquette assistance where we discussed wikihounding. As far as I see Jayjg never edited the Party for Freedom-page before, so his only reason to be there was because he was following my trail).
Regarding the list of Jewish Nobel Prize winners: We are currently still having a discussion about the See also-list. At first I did not agree with the adding of the Jewish recipients of the Honors medals, an American military award - as the Nobel Prize is international and not military. But in the thread it cited from policy WP:SEEALSO that see also is relatively free. So I not only added the List of Jewish American mobsters but also the List of black Nobel Laureates, List of Muslim Nobel Laureates, List of Nobel laureates by country and List of Israel Prize recipients. My reasoning was that different lists of Ethnic Nobel prize winners, different lists of Jewish prize winners and also a list of something contrasting Jewish edification.
Regarding the alleged (un)clean start, please review the above thread, I there acknowledged that I was not seeking a clean start to begin with.

In short, I feel content disputes are being fought out at AN/I. Also I feel that my actions are not explained in good faith in this ANI thread. Jayjg could have commented on his own talk page, and we could have come to a compromise on the Party of Freedom-article. Just as we did so before. Deleting the paragraph which led to all the hassle when I was still blocked was oleum camino. I'm being accused of Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND but my invitation to talk is ignored, which is exactly what counter battelfielding is about. The Hounding issue was discussed on the wikietiquette assistance board and that discussion got stuck, so I think it is unfair to pursue it still on my account. Please advice. -- Honorsteem (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I have been unblocked before following correct Wikipedia procedures. The current block strikes me as a re-block. I understand the blocking administrator isn't aware of the the exact history of my case, but the administrator who brought it to AN/I, was. But following the discussion at Wikiquette discussion it was suggested that editors with concerns were encouraged to take it to WP:RFC/U, which, when I'm unblocked, I think I should. -- Honorsteem (talk)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Honorsteem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See above

Decline reason:

Stale request; if no Admin was willing to unblock after a week, it's safe to say that no admin is willing to unblock at all. At a minimum, I would want to see you voluntarily agree to an interaction ban with Jayjg; stay away from their edits, their discussions, etc. If you can do that, there might be a case for unblocking. But we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just to be clear, after you were initially blocked for (in part) hounding me, and subsequently re-blocked for (in part), doing the same, you now suggest that the solution is to start an WP:RFC/U on me? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider an RFC/U to be "hounding" when it is clear that BOTH you and Honorsteem have behaviours that have led to these issues overall, then an RFC/U is an absolute necessity. If you also don't believe that someone has a right to file a valid Wikipedia report, then again, the RFC/U is probably the right thing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously equalizing one of the most respected editors with some banned troll? I think you need to take a break. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking to me, then no, read more carefully: what I said is that neither party has clean hands on this. Jayg's ANI report that led to this reblock was a low blow, and something that even I thought was beneath him to do. I have already given Honorsteem shit for their part too. Both sides need to "grow the fuck up and learn to get along" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. So Jayjg and Black Kite are both guilty guilty of "low blows" because you are not yet clearly convinced that this user is a previously banned disruptive editor who will only waste the time of productive editors and admins. Because civility rules do not allow me to write what I really think I'll just say that you're very naive. Best. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'm not convinced...and although I'm not willing to ride the WP:AGF-toboggan into the trees, nobody has yet to show/prove anything to me that would suggest that they are the return of a banned user. If someone had, I'd be taking a very different tack, wouldn't I. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't stated that an RFC/U is "hounding", I'm pointing out that his focus is still on me, not on writing an encyclopedia. I'm also going to quote the closing admin statement from the most recent WQA that Honorsteem referred to:

In a nutshell, editors do not get to harass other editors and then come disingenuously to WQA to complain when they are called out on their behaviour. Following an editor around to comment on other discussions they are having with other editors on unrelated matters is extending your dispute by other means and is the definition of WP:HOUND. That page exists for a reason, and that reason is amply explicated by the editing patterns of those who brought or support this complaint. May I remind editors that it is itself an abuse of wikiquette to use WQA in this manner and filings of this nature should be referenced in the future in the event of further disruptive or uncivil editing. I will now close this discussion as not only frivolous and without merit, but further an attempt to game the process.

And all that Honorsteem got out of that was "open an RFC/U on Jayjg"? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC/U is exactly what it is, a request for comments. It is not me judging you. It creates a space where the behavior of an editor can be evaluated and the editor has the possibility to explain his or her actions. I don't see any problem with that. My focus is, furthermore, not you. I do not know you. However, in editing Wikipedia we have countered, and I noticed your, in my opinion, atypical style of editing. I would like to work on Norwegian energy topics too, but in the same time I like to know that Jewish topics are dealt with fair and balanced. If, to achieve that, I need to address you, I will (that is, when I'm not blocked while doing so). -- Honorsteem (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told by several uninvolved administrators that your accusations about me are frivolous, you've now been banned twice for, in part, WP:HOUNDing me, you've followed me to articles on "Jewish topics" and been met with literally a dozen or more people there that disagree with you, and you think that what you still need to do is "address me" via an RFC/U? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seemed the 'hounding' was just a minor part of the problems raised? In fact you had no business yourself at Party for Freedom, and me reverting you there, you call hounding? You should check uncyclopedia more often. But do you maybe mean to say that the other part of your complaint, about BLP and WP:V, was not so strong?
I think you put the bar for hounding really a bit too low. If I would be following you on all your edits, which in fact would almost be impossible with somebody editing as feverishly as you. -- Honorsteem (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

additionally 2: I have (also) been proposed to be subject for administrative action due to a alleged WP:BLP violation. Why then did Jayjg until nothing now did nothing to undo my revert of his - leaving the supposed BLP violation in place? And why are there several other uninvolved editors who have edited around that same paragraph, apparently not concerned about any breach of any policy? -- Honorsteem (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]