User talk:Dan Eisenberg/Archive 1

Revert of Coeff. of variation.
You were wrong to revert my correction to Coefficient of variation. There are many ratio measurements that use negative numbers and therefore require absolute value bars in the equation. Here are a few: displacement in the negative direction, angles in a clockwise direction, velocity in a negative direction, negative acceleration, etc. These are ratio numbers but their inclusion in the equation requires the absolute value of the mean. Dger (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can not speak to the other ratio measurements. The CV article states the opposite currently (I believe with citations backing this up). -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Friendly request: please try to use reflist-talk when using references on talk pages. It prevents a mass of references from accumulating at the bottom of the page. Thank you!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 06:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC on adding anti-Semitic attacks?
Hello. At History of the Jews in New Zealand, you reverted another editor's insertion of details of an anti-Semitic attack on a graveyard in Auckland, citing an RfC on the US page. I'm unable to find any such RfC there. Could you supply a link please. I'm asking because if a template warning is available, I'd like to use it at the New Zealand article. Akld guy (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * [] Dan Eisenberg (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see that I didn't find the RfC because it's on the US anti-Semitism Talk page, not the US Jewish Talk page. I see also that that RfC pertains only to specific incidents that editor(s) had placed on the US page and is not intended as a global RfC to cover all cases where anti-semitism is reported. Your interpretation would mean that incidents of anti-semitism could not be reported at all. Your interpretation of the RfC is too wide in scope. Akld guy (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not contend that anti-semitic incidents should not be reported on at all. Simply that if they are included they must be consistent with wikipedia standards of being noteworthy. The same logic applies across wikipedia more generally. I have deleted recent incidents which do not appear to be noteworthy for an encyclopedia--consistent with this RfC. If I have deleted something which you think is noteworthy then let's discuss--but I also do not want to re-argue the same arguments over and over which I and several other independents editors have already agreed upon. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that you justified your revert on the grounds of 'not noteworthy'. You appear to be an American, and a case of vandalism in a far-off place such as Auckland may seem trivial to you. Here, it made newspaper headlines. So far as New Zealand is concerned, it was noteworthy, not least of all because anti-semitism is almost unheard of here. Akld guy (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you'll see from my edit history that I have suggested similar American cases be deleted. I should have defined noteworthy in a more precise way--that is noteworthy for wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper--we need a higher standard of likely historical significance. Please read the RfC discussion further and read WP:NOTNP. If after that, you think this should be included, please go ahead and include it with justification--ideally on that article's talk page. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Islam and antisemitism— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Serols (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

AfD discussion
Hi Dan, you may find some interest in the following discussion: Articles for deletion/Antisemitism in the 21st century - the Netherlands. gidonb (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE
Please consider WP:PRESERVE before making deletions like, which I have now moved to another article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikilinks in section headers in the Sleep Apnea article
Please see MOS:HEAD. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Caution
Hello, I'm E.M.Gregory. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Antisemitism in 21st-century France have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.



WP:ARBPIA notice
The arbitration committee has decided that editors with less than 500 edits, such as yourself, may not edit any article which is broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including Talk pages of such articles. You were probably not aware of this restriction when edited 1936 Tulkarm shooting, so I am making you aware of it now. Please to not continue to edit there until you have accumulated 500 or more edits in other areas of the encyclopedia. Read more about the case here WP:ARBPIA3. Epson Salts (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC
Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

COI case against you
Good day, I have created the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard case, of which you may be interested, since you are Dan Eisenberg. Thank you! -- 178.121.228.214 (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking over your edits, it appears to me that, while you have a valid point about avoiding long lists of individual incidents, the solution would be to summarize these with references, rather than delete them completely. Wording such as "A number of well-publicized attacks took place in 2015 and 2016..." with some descriptive text and references leading to related newspaper articles would allow readers to follow up for more detail on individual incidents. Based on the reactions you have been getting, I would strongly recommend avoiding any further wholesale removal of large sections of text without inserting some such summary text. (I am posting this on the RFC as well.) Cl ea n Co py talk 21:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Previous accounts
Please list all previous account names under which you have edited Wikipedia. Thank you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dan has emailed the Arbitration Committee with information regarding your concerns. We are in the process of reviewing it at this time. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)