User talk:Drsmoo/Archive2

You need to remove the editorialization that you added about Ron Paul from his page. The citations you include do not include an admission by him of writing the articles. Therefore, you cannot say that he admitted to writing the articles. You can include statements by him about the articles but to say that he admitted to writing them without an actual admission cited is incorrect. Robotman666 (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a citation from a reliable source, and in the source Ron Paul admitted to writing the newsletters. There are multiple sources saying the same thing, although "did not deny" might be a better phrase. I've added a few more direct sources as well. Drsmoo (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please show me by quoting from the article where he admits to writing the newsletters? I am failing to see anything besides allegations that he did, made by Charles Morris. Robotman666 (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure


 * http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1370695


 * Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the newsletter for subscribers, was unavailable for comment Thursday.


 * http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1355393


 * Paul said then that he opposed racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of ""current events and statistical reports of the time."


 * http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749


 * Paul said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents should focus instead on how to shrink government spending and reform welfare.




 * A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.


 * Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.


 * http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d


 * Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]


 * "If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.


 * In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.


 * "If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.


 * This is a discussion that should be carried out on the Ron Paul talk page however, not on mine. So this is the last I'm going to comment on it here, thanks Drsmoo (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey
Not sure how exactly to write this. Hope I am not violating any convensions here. Thanks for the notice about the attemot to move ny page regarding the ancient metal industry in the Levant. I think Levant is better name then Palestine since this is the common name for this area in the archiological literature. Palestine is a more recent construction. Do I need to do anything about it?

Thanks, Micky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micky.holtzman (talk • contribs) 13:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine thanks, your comment about Levant being more widely used in archeological literature is interesting though. Drsmoo (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

March GOCE copyedit drive

 * }

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Armageddon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Megiddo. 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) 09:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Southern Levant
Please could you explain what you think should be in the Southern Levant category? For example, why should Category:Images of Holyland tourism posters be in there? Do you think everything related to the region encompassing Israel, Palestine, and Jordan should be in there? Including, to pick a random example, Postage stamps and postal history of Jordan? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I was not involved with adding categories for those articles, so I'm not familiar with why specific categories were added and it's not my place to make that decision. You went wholesale removing Southern Levant and Levant from dozens of pages in a span of seconds, which speaks for itself. Even removing the word Southern Levant from an article dealing with it directly. That is disruptive, not constructive editing. Drsmoo (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "which speaks for itself"? Please AGF. The only thing it speaks for is that I have a view as to what that category should be used for, and that view is narrow.
 * For us to progress, you need to provide a view as well (since this question has never been discussed before). Otherwise it feels like this.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You contradict yourself, claiming once you prefer a more specific description of locations, but then in articles related to southern levant, doing a find and replace to remove the term with "this region." My view is that wikipedia articles should be accurate and neutral. Drsmoo (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That article was not consistent with its sources, many of which were focused on differently defined regions (ie they didn't use the term "southern levant"). It was my attempt to find a solution without requiring a full rewrite. Since you took the initative to revert me, I look forward to you putting in the effort to fix the underlying problem.
 * Since you are unwilling to state your position on what the category should show, I will go ahead and proceed as appropriate. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not constructive editing for you to "ask a question" wait a minuscule amount of time for an answer, and then use that as "validation" for your edits. I have seen you do this several times and it is disruptive. Why not state your opinion on what should be removed and why first? And I don't consider your edits to be equivalent to "stating your opinion". Looking through the Nonferrous Archaeometallurgy in the Southern Levant article, It is extremely well sourced. Your claim that a source that describes a region in the southern levant must specifically use the words "southern levant" to be in the article is not constructive, reasonable, or valid. For example, you could use that same logic to then remove the article as a whole, after you had just removed every reference to the word "southern levant" from the entire article. Your logic in this case doesn't work and is not consistent with wikipedia citation standards Drsmoo (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Before this comment i had already opened a talk page at the category page.
 * Let's discuss the Nonferrous question at that article. Your opinion sounds like WP:OR to me. We should follow sources as closely as we possibly can. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So I'll be blunt, your assertion that sources in an article about metallurgy of the southern levant must all include the word "southern levant" even when clearly describing regions in the southern levant is not valid. Drsmoo (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is an example then. Your edit added back: "their products were found in the Southern Levant.[ref] Shalev, S. 1996. Archaeometallurgy in Israel....". The implication from the text as written is that these products were found across the whole region. But the source refers only to Israel. That is (a) confusing, (b) misleading, and (c) wrong. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not the text's implication. That is your personal interpretation. Israel is located in the Southern Levant. Drsmoo (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you are correct, it is my personal interpretation, and I am sure many other readers will have interpreted the same, which is precisely the problem. It is therefore better to say "the region" so as not to allow readers to make incorrect interpretations. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Using your personal interpretation to assume what others think is not good editing. The article is extremely well-written, well-sourced and accurate, and there is literally ZERO excuse for doing a "find and replace" and removing all references to Southern Levant as you did. Drsmoo (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your note
He's just a confused little boy seeking attention. The admin boards are not worth the hassle. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
I just remembered this. As I have said before, I think you are a good editor and your heart is in the right place. I hope that we can find a way to reach a final conclusion on this topic, as I believe we could collaborate well in many areas across the encyclopedia. If there is anything I can do that will help you trust me more and rebuild a little good faith, I would be happy to. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleting a Section from ANI
It appears that you deleted your report of disruptive editing from WP:ANI after being told that an open report at another forum was inconsistent with proceeding at WP:DRN. You maybe didn't know that you shouldn't do that. Deleting of posts to talk pages can be very confusing, especially if other editors have been notified of them or have responded to them. You may either strike a post to a talk page with the and, or, in some cases, collapse it or box it. Deleting of posts to administrative noticeboards is sometimes seen as vandalism. In this case, since it was your own post, it was a good-faith deletion, but it violates various guidelines to delete posts to talk pages or noticeboards. Don't do that again. I am assuming that you didn't know any better. Now you do. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I wasn't aware it would be an issue, otherwise I wouldn't have closed it. What's the correct way to delist an AN/I report in the future, if there is one? Also, there was a talk page discussion that had my username in the topic title and was, in my opinion, personally attacking me. That's what I opened the AN/I about. After closing the AN/I, I changed the talk page title citing the talk page guidelines which said having a username in the title wasn't allowed. I thought that that would be preferable to dragging everything through AN/I, and would just get the ball rolling on debating the issues, but maybe that was a mistake, in which case I'd be happy to undue it. Please let me know? thanks. (Ed. I've since undone it, pending feedback) Drsmoo (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Southern Levant for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southern Levant is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Southern Levant until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your support
Thank you for this edit. Perhaps you would care to comment at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement as well? Debresser (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:Wikihounding
Please note that the Wikipedia policy on WP:Wikihounding is actionable with blocks and bans if it gets out of control. Please desist from this. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not hounding you or anyone else. Drsmoo (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

1RR
You just crossed it. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that a revert is undoing or negating someones work, which is not what I did Drsmoo (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree - you are right. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Milli Vanilli
Just saw. It reminded me of this famous song. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose there is a correlation between dishonesty on Wikipedia and dishonesty in pop music. Drsmoo (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you are lip-synching someone else's words? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope Drsmoo (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail
 Kamel Tebaast  20:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Lashed out
bit dramatic, don't you think - please take a good read of WP:BLP policy - we are guided to be and report conservatively about living people - Govindaharihari (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That is the term used in the source. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Your opinion that it is dramatic is immaterial to wikipedia. Being conservative on Wikipedia means explicitly following reliable sources Drsmoo (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon
Hi.

Would you mind undoing the reversion you did on the Gilad Atzmon topic relating to Alan Dershowitz's comments.

Far from being "notable information", it's been shown to deliberately false and willfully misrepresentative

See here https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/dershowitz-lies-and-glitches-by-gilad-atzmon.html where Atzmon checks the quote Dershowitz used and found that

many did not even exist, that others were incomplete or taken out of context, and others related to comments made by others.

I understanding biographies of living people have special requirement of accuracy and these are clearly inaccuracy and unduly emphasised.

Thank you. --Crissedcrossed (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey A writer's blog can't be used as a source on a BLP article except to denote the author's opinion. That's why we use reliable secondary opinions from notable people. I also disagree with the idea that the text is misrepresentative. Drsmoo (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Except that we aren't using the subject's blog, we're using the book from which Dershowitz misrepresents his quotes. If one checks the given references, one finds that the statements as they are represented do not exist.

In short, that they are wrong misconstrued, non-existent or false and from a clearly non-neutral party.

If something is proven to be wrongly misconstrued, non-existent or false, do we still use it?

Thank you. --Crissedcrossed (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion that they're misconstrued. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and notable viewpoints. I see you're new to Wikipedia. These discussions should be held on the article talk page. Drsmoo (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Crissedcrossed
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

DRN
See Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Tel Dan
Please note this thread Talk:Tel_Dan_Stele, to allow us to continue our discussion from the DRN.

Many thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Already resolved. A consensus has been established after multiple editors have contributed. Continuing to ping/address only me and pretending the consensus doesn't exist will not change the reality. I suggest engaging with the other editors if you wish to change this consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It is your responsibility to discuss your reverts. Noone else's. If you revert, you answer for it. This debate is continuing because you refuse this responsibility. I look forward to continuing this discussion for as long as it takes to get a sensible answer to my challenge. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion is over and will remain over unless the consensus changes. Just a reminder that Wikipedia is based on consensus, editing against consensus is disruptive editing, and it will be reverted. Drsmoo (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus needs more than just you. Extrapolating other people's answers to a different question doesn't change that. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

AN/I
I suggest only responding to the uninvolved admins on my report. More text makes it less likely someone will bother to even read it, and there's really no need to counter every silly claim someone makes and nobody seriously picks up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Khamenei and apartheid analogy
Hello. I think this tag should be removed, since there's no discussion in talk page to justify it. Also take a look at this discussion, where the known POV warrior removed sourced content without consensus. It's not realistic that a POV warrior will change a long-standing version until "there's new consensus" to put it back. It's like if you start removing people from the 'support analogy' section based on non-wikipolicy nonsense and then demand that before restoring them, a "new consensus" should be achieved in the talk page. Do you see the stupid logic behind this? Please, restore Deng, he's the only one objecting it, he removed it without consensus or Wikipedia's rules, like he tried to do in many other ARBPIA articles, also adding stupid tags. He was almost banned for it (see articles of Zionism, Ariel Sharon, Human rights in Israel, Israel Defense Forces, etc). Could you please restore it now before he decides "to clean" other sourced content he doesn't like or doesn't fit his political agenda? Thanks--Newer wiki (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jordanian annexation of the West Bank
Jordanian annexation of the West Bank is now the official name ...after a prolonged RfC (see the talk page.) So please follow that, as accepted policy, cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's nice, it has no relevance to the fact that it was an occupation, and that the source provided in the article describes it as an occupation. It is also described as an occupation throughout the article you just linked to. Drsmoo (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article is lousy, but that doesn't mean that the name is wrong. The West Bank was occupied for 2 years, then annexed in 1950. To call that whole period for an occupation is clearly wrong, and something one would only do to make a political statement, not a factual one. Huldra (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, feel free to discuss it on the relevant talk page(s) however. Drsmoo (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And the relevant talk page was on Talk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bank: we had the RfC there, so we didn't have to have the same discussion over, and over, and over again, Huldra(talk) 20:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the article describes it as occupation, as does the source. Drsmoo (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The only source you are referring to is, AFAIK, an Israeli statement. Even if official Israeli statement refer to, say, East Jerusalem as Israeli territory, does not mean that we, that is, Wikipedia, use the same language. We try to, (I hope!) to use a neutral language, and not the language of just one part in a conflict, Huldra (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Archiving this discussion. This is not the article's talk page. Drsmoo (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon
Please mind WP:1RR. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)