User talk:Hyperionsteel/Archive 1

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Lukobe 23:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I may have violated the 3RR Rule
I believe I have inadvertenly violated the 3RR rule with regard to the article entitled "Canadian Arab Federation." I have been engaged in a protracted battle with user "Tiamut" in trying to set the record straight with regard to an award handed out by the CAF.

While the mistake was unintentional, the responsibility is mine and mine alone. I will endeavour to be more careful in the future.(Hyperionsteel 03:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

WP:3RR
Please read this policy very carefully, and revert your recent edits on the Bangash page. If you do not do this, you will be at risk of being blocked. CJCurrie (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're familiar with Wikipedia's rules, you should be aware that your speculation re: the meaning of Bangash's statements is in violation of WP:NOR. Just thought I'd let you know -- I don't have any desire to defend Bangash, but I object in principle to borderline misattribution.  CJCurrie (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you that one. I've removed the speculation on Bangash's statement. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

Greg Felton
I cannot find the link to him being awarded by the Canadian Islamic Congress (if he was at all) but I found on their web site he was the guest speak and he appears many times on their website. One of his articles is called "HONORABLE JEWS REMAIN UNSEEN AND UNHEARD IN THE MEDIA

Anyhow, good luck and I would appreciate if you find any wikipedia worthy sources that you indeed post them.

best regards --Eternalsleeper (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP
Please read the Biographies of living persons. It looks like you are trying to use a number of biographies on Wikipedia as "attack articles" ie as platforms from which to attack individuals you dislike or disagree with. That sort of behaviour is discouraged on Wikipedia. In particular, you should try to be balanced in your contributions and include positive information as well as critical mentions. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Also can you please leave only one blank line between paragraphs (and none after the end of a section)? That is the accepted style here and your habit of putting in two blank lines between paragraphs makes your contributions look bad. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? I thought having an extra space made it more readible. Anyway, Thanks for letting me know.

I disagree with your interpretation of my edits as attacks. I am careful not to editorialize or use inappropriate language and I also cite specific sources to support my work. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

Fair enough (though I thought I noticed some editorialization or at least some negative speculation in earlier drafts of these articles - I haven't gone back to check who it was who made the comments in question). But you do only seem to dig for negative information. If you want to create balanced NPOV biographies you really should try to find the good as well as the bad. Also, just throwing out a group of quotations is not biography writing and is better suited to Wikiquote than for this project. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Greg Felton
An editor has nominated Greg Felton, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your hostility
These comments on my talk page:

"I see you tried to whitewash Felton's views by removing his comments on the Holocaust, Israel's existence, Irwin Cotler and 9/11. I've reinserted them and I will advise you not to remove other people's contributions in order to hide his true views. You quote Felton numerous times throughout your additions, why can't I? Or is it simply because you want to hide his true views on Israel and Jews because he supports Hamas and the Palestinian cause? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC))"

"I realize you are a support of the Palestinian cause, but you should not try to hide the views of those who, in addition to supporting the Palestinians, also hold controversial views on Israel, Jews, and the Holocaust. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC))"

are wholly unacceptable. You don't seem to be reading the policy pages I keep referring you to. I removed the information you added because it is from a primary source, Greg Felton's own writing. If you notice, the material I added was from secondary sources (i.e. people writing about Greg Felton's writing). This distinction is very important because using primary sources leads to original research, something that is deeply frowned upon here at Wikipedia. You need to find a source that discusses Felton's writing, rather than selectively quote-mining from his writing and adding your own interpretation.

Also, please read WP:NPA. I am quite tired of your spurious speculations about my intentions here. I edited Felton's article because it was in piss poor shape before I got to it. That's what we do here at Wikipedia, improve articles or add new ones that need to be added. No one else seems to have a problem with my edits. Indeed on the deletion discussion page, people are bemoaning the reinsertion of your original research once again. Try to learn from those around you and stop attacking me just because I ask you to read policies and adhere by them.  T i a m u t  15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tiamut"

I'll say it again: I believe that you are trying to whitewash Felton's views. I do not believe this is acceptable. It is important to note his opinions on Irwin Cotler, the Holocaust, 9/11 and Jews. Why are you so afraid to have this on his webpage. Are you concerned it might damage his image as a champion of Palestinian rights. In the past, you attempted to whitewash the views and statements of Khaled Mouammar of the Canadian Arab Federation regarding his emailing of an Anti-Semitic flyer to Liberal delegates.

If you think I will allow you to whitewash the views of anti-Semities, holocaust deniers, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists, think again.

And, I repeat myself, I am citing Felton's works as a counterbalance to your depiction of him as a victim of "zionist" oppression. I am only citing specific comments that Felton made, which were posted on other websites (i.e. not his home page), that deal with very important issues. I am not editorializing or using inappropriate language. I'm using Felton's language.

You'll also note I have not deleted any of your work (which all seems to come from one article in a far-left journal).

As for your posting this crap on my talkpage, I would appreciate it if you didn't. I'm not interested in your excuses as to why Felton's views should be concealed.

As for your claim the article was in "piss poor" shape, I'll remind you that it adequetly and completely showed Felton's views on a number of important topics.

And by the way, It seems the only people who "bemoan" my contributions are people like you, who want to conceal his views on the Holocaust, Irwin Cotler, 9/11 and Jews simply because he is a master polemist who supports the abolition of Israel.

And again, if you think I'm going to let you conceal Felton's views on the aforementioned issues, your incorrect.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC))


 * Again, you don't seem to understand Wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:OR. I encourage you to read them once again. I also encourage you to re-read WP:NPA and a new one WP:AGF. Your comments to me are invariably littered with all kinds of inappropriate, speculatory comments regarding my intentions. It would be nice if you could stop doing that, as I have asked you before. I am giving you one final warning ... the next time you fail to heed this advice, I will report you for disruptive editing and incivility at WP:ANI. Please consider this not a threat, but a plea to focus on writing an encyclopedia, rather than carrying out imaginary battles of good and evil that have nothing to do with that task. Thanks.  T i a m u t  17:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me what rule I'm violating. The only quotes I make from Felton are from articles he wrote for other sources (i.e. the Media Monitors Network, Canadian Arab News etc.). I have take his words in context and presented them without editorializing or drawing conclusion. These are important topics which need to be addressed. Basing his entire character on one article from a far-left journal is, in my view, not sufficient. Looking at Wikipedia policies, you will note that I do not violate rules regarding accuracy, sources, editorializing, libelous accusations, etc. Simply quoting from articles Felton has written for other websites is not original research (unless of course I used them to draw conclusions, which I don't).

The problem is not few, if any, credible third parties (most comments seem to come from blogs) have commented on the articles I have referenced in my contributions. However, I believe very strongly that Felton's views on the aforementioned issues must be included. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

The rule that you have been breaking is this one:. Specifically, ''Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if: Media Monitors Network is not a reliable source and counts as a self-published source. Your additions in the past have meant that the article was dominated by self-published resources, which is not allowed (as above). I also do not agree that you have presented them without editorializing to suit your point of view. For example, you picked the quote "Al Qaeda doesn't exist," but the actual text makes clear that the Felton's claim was much modified in the explanation: "Felton, who writes columns for the local Arabic/English newspaper Al Shorouq and for the Alberta Arab News, had a surprise or two up his sleeve, telling me at one point, "Al Qaeda doesn't exist." But it turned out his explanation was similar to, although not as entertaining as, the theory that the true author of Shakespeare's plays was someone else who also happened to be named William Shakespeare." --Slp1 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * it is not contentious;
 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The references I made to Felton's work were certainly not self-serving, did not involve claims about events to third parties, did not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, and, finally, there is no doubt that Felton wrote these articles. While there were few primary sources before, you and I have added several secondary sources.

It seems that you believe the quotes are contentious, but this could apply to practially anything, depending on your point of view. Even Felton himself, who apparently has contributed to the talk page of the wikipage, doesn't deny or protest that his views were posted. I believe that maybe you are interpreting these rules to strictly.

By the way, I added more context to the quote that "Al-Qaida doesn't exist."(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC))


 * Yes, but your quote picks did overwhelm the article so that it is (or at least was) primarily sourced from these self-published material, which is not allowed, as I pointed out above. And there certainly were claims about third parties (e.g. Cotler).  I have deleted the Al-qaeda reference. You appear to have misread the article... you attributed the  comment about Shakespeare to Felton, but it was the article's author. I don't believe it is possible to divine what he meant by that statement, given the sentence following, and therefore it is best to leave it out. --Slp1 (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, actually you did decide his views of Israel were important, well before Tiamut got involved. Here's how the article looked after your edits of December 31st just before Tiamut edited. Compare it to the policy list above: there are several third parties mentioned, and most of the article is made up of primary resources. And this was after DoubleBlue had added the sentence about that "Ahmadinejad is wrong to deny the Holocaust outright" (with an edit summary about a clean-up of NPOV)  that you had not included, though it was in the same article.
 * But in any case my point is not that his views of Israel should be removed, and I actually agree that something about them should be included if his article is kept. My point is that your strategy (on this and other articles) of Quote mining a subject's words is not the way to write an NPOV encyclopedia entry. It is too open to subjectivity, point of view pushing and original research in determining what views are notable.  I said that "We don't want all of Felton's views", and of course I am sure you will agree that this is true in that, for example, we don't need to know his views of sports teams!  We need his verifiable, notable views that can be reliably sourced using BLP guidelines and policies. These can only be determined by looking for reliable secondary sources that mention them. I myself disagree strongly with his views, but as editors we must write the article without passing judgment or leading readers to have a particular opinion of him and his views.  That is what NPOV editing is all about.  Slp1 (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not replying sooner: for some reason I only just saw your posts on my page. Yes, indeed, as you have figured out, the article got deleted, which was too bad after all the work that people had done, but the best thing, I believe.  Based on your comments on my page, it seems to me that you are learning to ask the right questions, which is half way to finding out the answers! In a article about a living person we have to be especially careful to use reliable secondary sources in determining what views are notable, especially if they are controversial.  We can probably use a few quotes from the subject, but have to be very careful that these are fair, representative and placed in an appropriate context.   If we have strong opinions about a subject, we have to be very careful about what and how we edit, so that we don't let our biases show by putting something in a better or worse light.  This is a great challenge, of course, but also a fantastic learning experience.  This essay explains the idea quite well, I think.  And if you are going to continue editing in these hot topic areas, it will be as well to learn NPOV editing skills as fast as possible!  Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, but your comments to Tiamut about being civil and respectful even when you have strong disagreements are right on the money: they work well here and in real life too!.  Good luck! --Slp1 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Hyperionsteel
I don't like "fighting" either and I'm sorry if I was brusque with you over your editing at the Greg Felton article and at the Canadian Arab Federation. You're new here and I should be more patient. For what's it worth, your last edits before the article was deleted were so much better than what you were writing before, and were completely in line with the relevant policies and guidelines. I suppose we can thank Slp1 for that, since he took the time to refer you to specific information in the WP:BLP policy (something I should have done, but didn't - again, my apologies). Anyway, I hope there are no hard feelings and that we understand each other better now. I am always willing to move on and assume good faith once I see that an editor is really making an effort. I hope that you can too.  T i a m u t  07:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reasoned response.  T i a m u t  10:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jean Ziegler
When making controversial additions to articles where there have been concerns raised under our policy on living people, please consider suggesting them on the talk page and getting the views of other editors. Otherwise you are likely to be reverted. We strive for neutrality here, and quotes from critics are not neutral and need careful justification in the context. Thanks.--Docg 22:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed your addition again. Its quite a stretch to believe the official organization misspelled Jean Ziegler as John Ziter.  Without some kind of reliable source to back up your claim of a misspelling, this speculation has no place in the article.  Shell    babelfish 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think its rather scary if the organization can't spell the name of people its recognized, however, there's still a couple of problems with your addition. First, its what Wikipedia calls original research since the misspellings and listing on that site haven't been reported by a reliable media source.  Second, using a listing on the site to contradict a person's claim that they didn't accept the award is stretching the source a bit far - there's nothing to show that he wouldn't have been listed regardless of whether or not he accepted the award.  It would be best if instead of using this primary source to support the statement, you found a reliable third-party source which would support it instead.  Shell    babelfish 02:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a point - there is no third party source to confirm this. While I still believe that Jean Ziegler and "John Ziter," it should be kept off wikipedia until a third party source is available.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Dana_as_an_Adult.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dana_as_an_Adult.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Human Rights Commission: Criticism and Controversy edit war
Please stop reverting eachother and sort this out on the talk page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you will look at the discussion page for this article, you will see that, in a previous dispute, I've posted numerous entries to support my position. Frank Pais, by contrast, did not post any. Mr. Pais was not interested in discussions on talk page, even though I repeatedly suggested in the edit summaries that he do so.

If you can convince Mr. Pais to participate in discussions on the talk page, feel free to try. But I wouldn't hold out much hope.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

Elmasry
Hyperionsteel - I understand why you reverted my edits, but I disagree. This article is WAY too long for a minor public figure such as Elmasry and reads like a laundry list of his every thought and public statement. This is not the purpose of a BLP. 007blur007 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but I disagree. Elmasry is a very visible, vocal and controversial figure in Canada. He is the head of the largest Islamic organization in the country and he has made many controversial remarks and statements over the past 7 years. This article deserves to be detailed - but accurate. If you feel anything in this article is inaccurate or is overly bias, feel free to correct it or add additional information.

However, I don't believe that removing so much of the article is helpful. Elmasry is not a minor figure and all of the statements and citations in this article are properly sourced (if any aren't please let me know). I believe the article should remain in its current form. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Hello, again. Thank you for taking the time to reply. I do not believe that the article is overly biased in either direction and did not mean to imply that. I just do not believe that it serves as a proper enclyopediac entry. We can agree to disagree on the prominence of Elmasry (which is fine) but, even if I accept that he deserves such a huge article, it should not serve as a laundry list of his every notable statement. His article contains more quotes and positions than Winston Churchill's!!!! Minor (praise for Joel Kovel) or long since newsworthy items (response to "Merrry Christmas") simply do not merit inclusion in the BLP. Elmasry's article now includes his quotes on the Omar Khadr situation. By comparision, the articles for Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion (or former PM Paul Martin for that matter) do not mention their public statements regarding Khadr. Why do you feel that Elmasry's opinions are more worthy of inclusion? 007blur007 (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Elmasry is not commenting on speed limits or the building of dams. With regards to his comments on Omar Khadr, he essentially stated (although he later changed his mind) that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a racist. This is very notable and should be mentioned in Wikipedia.

The list of this statements, and the reactions of them, all deal with very important issues to which Elmasry has very strong and often controversial opinions. Israel, Homosexualty, the War on Terror, The Old Testament, to cite a few examples, are issues which Elmasry has been both praised and condemned for.

The response to Merry Christmas is notable because the issue of whether or not Canada's multicultural society made wishing someone Merry Christmas was cultural insensitive proved to be a topic of much debate among all Canadians. Although I'll admit that this may not belong in the article - let me think about it.

Elmasry's controversial statements on issues (such as those listed above) do belong in wikipedia. The fact that Elmasry makes lots of controversial statements warrants a large article. Elmasry represents himself as the leader of Canada's Muslim community - which makes his statements very important, especially in times like these when Islamophobia and terrorism on hot topics on the Canadian and world stage. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:Miriya holding Dana.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:Miriya holding Dana.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had already met these conditions. I was simply uploading a new version of a file that was already in place. In any case, I've added more specific information to the fair use rational and the copyright holder's title. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Please replace the license, screenshot is not the same as a video capture - the copyright license needs replacing. feydey (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the copyright tag for video files - only for image files. This isn't technically a video but rather an animated gif file. However, I don't want to nitpick as I can understand why this would be considered a video file.

Could you please point out what copyright tage I should use? I was under the impression that animated gif files qualified as Images? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Robotech character prods
Hi, I noticed that you removed some proposed deletions from a few Robotech character articles. To prevent them from going to articles for deletion, I'd recommend having a look over the manga/anime manual of style for characters. I hope this helps you! -Malkinann (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

CHRC
After a bit of contemplation, I agree with your position on the format of this article. My apologies for any trouble our conflict may have caused. Frank Pais (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for seeing my point of view - I know you had a strong opinion on this issue. I'm glad we can finally resolve this and move on.


 * I've notified the mediation page that we can resolve this issue without further conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-08-10_Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission#New_Development


 * (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Eurabia
Hyperionsteel, your idea of including comments from Archbishop of Canterbury is being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Fan (talk • contribs) 07:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Addressing copyright concerns
Hi. Thanks for your contribution to cleaning the copyright violation at First Robotech War. I just wanted to point out a couple of issues to you for future reference in case you encounter such violations again. First, the article is not created in article space, as you created it at First Robotech War/Temp. As the copyright violation template advises, it should be created in talk space, at Talk:First Robotech War/Temp. It's a simple matter to reach that space by clicking on the "redlink" in the template. Second, in order to create a new article to replace one that has copyright violations, you must rewrite the article from scratch. This is because if we use text from the earlier article that was contributed by other editors we will be violating their copyright. Wikipedia's contributors do not release copyright to their work, but license it under GFDL. GFDL allows reuse and modification, but it requires that contributors receive authorship credit. Wikipedia provides this with an intact "article history". In this particular case, deleting the old article was not necessary. There was substantial non-infringing content, and the material could be simply removed. Even if it could not, if there is a "clean" version in the article's history, we generally revert to that.

I see that you have also created temporary versions at Third Robotech War/Temp and Second Robotech War/Temp and will be taking a look at those as I evaluate the copyright concerns at the base articles.

Again, I appreciate your assistance in cleaning the copyright violation. This information may be of use to you if you encounter a similar situation in the future. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image uploads
I am here to inform you that all of the images you have uploaded concerning characters from Robotech are going to be deleted because they do not fall within proper fair usage/non-free content guidelines. These were all too large, and not used in the articles they were placed in in an encyclopedic way. They were there to illustrate the article. Not improve it to where the article would be useless without the images.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with your interpretation of my uploads. I felt these images they added necessary context and clarity to the articles. However, it seems I have no choice in this matter. Anyway, I accept the decision and I won't reload them (or any similar images). However, I do want to express my displeasure with the decision to remove them. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC))


 * The issue is that your images were way too large and were not within fair use guidelines. Fair use images should only be as big as they are used in the article, and in the case of Dana Sterling, where I found well over a dozen images and three were animated gifs, their usage should be minimal.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * These images had been posted for quite some time without any problems. Why are they suddenly being declared improper?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

Barbara Kay
I took out the "response" section because:


 * (i) It's clearly stated at the beginning of the WP article that the "Barbara Kay controversy" involves *all* of her articles written in this period.
 * (ii) The section of the WP article that introduces the controversy *already* includes quotes and citations from all of the articles in question, including the one that you've cited as her "response".  (In fact, one of the quotes that you used in your "response" section had already been used earlier in the article.)
 * (iii) If all of her articles from this period are to be considered as a "collective statement" (as this article does), then we cannot also use one of the articles as her *response*.

I've already integrated some of the text from your "response" section into the section that introduces the controversy, and I'm prepared to add more if necessary. I understand what you were attempting to do, but I don't think it fits with the existing framework of the article. CJCurrie (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears you are correct. I initally thought this only referred to the initial article but I now agree with your assessment. Feel free to modify my contributions as you deem necessary. My concern was that Barbara Kay was not being given the chance to explain her position in response to the criticism section - but I suppose your configuration of the article will satisfy this requirement.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Thanks. I'm pleased that this didn't escalate into an edit war.  CJCurrie (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been through some nasty editing conflicts recently with several wiki contributors who are extremely biased and adversarial. I'm glad that you take a more sagacious approach to wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Assessment
You're welcome. The next time, please copy the example text that was put in commentary brackets down to the requests and don't merely insert a name, I almost overlooked the request :) Hekerui (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Question About Your User Page
Hi, I was just passing by a page you edited and visited your page due to your interesting name. Could you explain how you've been to 1 continent but 3 countries? If you're in Canada, isn't the only other country to go to the US?! Yours desperately seeking geography knowledge, Bigger digger (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify: I have been to Canada, the United States, and Mexico - all of which are located in North America. I'll admit that North America is sometimes considered to consist of only Canada and the United States. However, it is generally accepted that North America's southern limit is delimited by the Darién watershed along the Colombia-Panama border, or at the Panama Canal. There are some geographical constructs (i.e. Central America) in which Canada and the United States are listed separately from Mexico. However, Central America is generally considered to be a sub-continent.


 * Anyways, I hope this explains why I stated that I have been to three countries on one continent. Also, I'm glad you like my name.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Comprehensive answer, thanks! I'm off to revise my continents... Bigger digger (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardling List of Robotech Characters and character articles.
You and User:SkyWalker are getting quite close to an edit war. Perhaps you should talk it out? Half Shadow  03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga Half  Shadow  03:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I've posted my position on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross
SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

like most politicians, you didn't read the bill
please, don't cite, let alone quote, a piece of legislation without actually reading it first. regarding your cow tipping edits, dave aronberg did not file a bill that dealt with anything resembling cow tipping. if you had actually read the bill, you would have known that it said the following:

SB 1418 - 2004 Regular Session

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. Section 828.121, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:

828.121 Conduct of simulated bullfighting exhibitions; bulltailing.-- (1) As used in this section, the term "bovine animal" means an animal of the subfamily bovine and includes, but is not limited to, a steer, calf, bull, ox, heifer, or cow. (2) A It shall be unlawful, and punishable as a misdemeanor, for any person may not to conduct or engage in a simulated or bloodless bullfighting exhibition. (3) A person may not intentionally drag by the tail or fell by the tail a bovine animal as an organized sports exhibition, also known as "bulltailing." (4)(a) A person who violates subsection (2) commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (b) A person who violates subsection (3) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (5) This section does not prohibit or otherwise restrict recognized rodeo or animal husbandry and training techniques or practices that are not otherwise prohibited by general law.

Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2004.

now, i don't see anything regarding cow tipping. this bill regards "ORGANIZED SPORTS EXHIBITIONS." this is the only scary side of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.134.190 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My citation was properly sourced. I don't see why you are so upset over this. I'm reinstating the citaiton.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

"racial language"?
What does this mean? I am not from america, so I do not understand... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.213 (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Do not use derogatory terms
In Canada and the United States, the term "Negro" is considered to be an extremely derogatory term. It's use on Wikipedia to refer to African-Americans is completely inappropriate. In addition, your writings were a violation of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Please review them for more information before posting more comments. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Non-free images
Hi. A number of separate issues here.
 * Firstly, if the images are used in separate articles (i.e. the character is notable enough to have their own article), then the image should only be used once - in the main article.
 * Secondly, if a character is not notable enough to have their own article, then general consensus is that they're not important enough to justify a non-free image either. Both categories come into the section of policy of overuse (WP:NFCC).
 * Furthermore, non-free images in list articles also tend to fall foul of WP:NFCC ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."). If the image is being used merely to show what the character looks like, then it fails this criteria.  The only exception would be where the appearance of the character is notable (for example, it is vital to the plot) and that appearance would be too difficult to explain in text (WP:NFCC says "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?").
 * In general, the criteria in WP:NFCC (which all non-free material must pass) tends to mean that non-free images in list articles tend to be removed when editors familiar with image policy find them. It is, however, a slow process. Black Kite 00:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I can see your point. My concern was based on the impression that the reason above was the only justification for the pictures' deletion. I appreciate your explanation.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Durban Review Conference - "Government Boycotts"
FYI, I think you did a very good job making these edits on the Durban Review Conference article. It cleared things up nicely.  shirulashem     (talk)   12:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I figured this design would provide more clarity. I've been putting a lot of work into this article over the past few days to keep it comprehensive and up-to-date. I'm glad my efforts are appreciated. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Obama / Israel
I've rolled this edit back because it did not appear to be a political position. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. In this citation, Obama is stating that the creation of the state of Israel is a sign of hope. I consider this to be indicative of a political position (i.e. he supports Israel).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I see it as just a simple statement, whereas you are essentially saying the statement implies a political position of some kind. I'd have to argue that you are synthesizing additional meaning. I've read the full article and I can discern no political position of any kind. What position are you referring to? (you can go ahead and reply here - I will watchlist your talk page) -- Scjessey (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't consider this synthesizing because there I am not adding any "additional meaning." In this article, Obama states his views on the establishment and continued existence of the State of Israel. (I don't actually say this in the citation - rather, I've simply provided a brief quote from Obama) Since this section of the article deals with Obama's views on Israel, I believe it is relevant. Keep in mind that the reason this section is here in the first place is because the stances and opinions of presidential candidates with regard to Israel are a very notable factor when it comes to American politics and foreign policy.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I am well aware of the importance to American politics of Israel; however, there is still no statement of a political position in his words. Unless there is a clear position stated, there can be no reasonable basis for inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would argue that Obama's statement supporting Israel is and of itself of political position.(23:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Even that is drawing an implied meaning from the statement. I suppose if one is an Israeli, or sympathetic to Israeli views, one might reasonably draw that meaning. As a neutral, however, the meaning is not clear. Certainly there is no suggestion of a stated political position. If anything, one could say that Obama expressed a personal empathy for the Israeli "cause" (if that's the right word), but not anything that might constitute a political position. Being a BLP-related article, you would need to present an unambiguous reference to support any political position, and this statement doesn't really meet that standard. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I still disagree. Obama is stating that the creation of Israel is a signal of hope - which I argue is a political position (given the strong differences of opinion on this issue). However, after thinking this over, I'll accept that including this would require a broader definition of a "political opinion" then would be practical for wikipedia. Anyway, I'll accept your point of view on this issue (i.e. I won't reinsert this citation).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Thank you for spending the time to think about this. I have enjoyed this healthy discussion, and I wish this were a model for all discussions on political articles! Even though I don't think this can be considered a political opinion, it is, nevertheless, an important and noteworthy statement. Perhaps it is worthy for inclusion at another article, such as First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad idea - I'll take a look to see if this citation is suitable for another article. Also, I appreciate you explaining your position politely (lately, I find that's a rarity when it comes to topics related to American support for Israel's survival).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

Konpeki no Kantai episode I
Good work with the added table. Have you watched the first episode on Veoh? --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have watched clips on Veoh. I also watched a number of clips that are available on Youtube. Although I don't speak Japanese, I can interpret (correctly I hope) the events depicted in the show and contrast them to the actual events that did occur. I have also taken a look at reviews that are available on the Internet in English. I hope to add more information on this series when I have the time.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC))
 * My sentiments exactly. per the tags, we still need more translators to work on the JA page, but you're welcome. no problem. just reply here, don't need to copaste it on my TP, I'm watching this on my contributions list. As for the YT clips, I used to watch the full eps of Kyokujitsu no Kantai there last year (uploader's name is Akkanbei) until they were put down due to copyvio. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done extensive work on a number of anime articles, among them The Super Dimensional Fortress Macross (and pages for the characters), Macross 7, and Megazone 23. The next project I plan to undertake is to expand and clarify Genocyber. However, Konpeki no Kantai is much trickier because there are no dubs or even subtitles (not even black market subtitles as far as I can tell). Although it has a unique plot, its very unlikely it will ever be released outside of Japan (a series depicting Japan defeating the United States in World War II would probably not be well-received in North America). I'll let you know if I find any additional info/clips on this series.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Cool. Your comments about not ever being released in the US is spot-on, even Ted Nomura agreed (in the Antarctic Press forum). Yup, Japan first whacked the US, had Britain join their lot...and later signed a peace treaty with Washington in the fight against Germany. Seeing at how Kyokujitsu no Kantai turned out especially in the latter eps, I got a feeling that it expanded the Atlantic Ocean battles shown in the first series' final six eps as a side story not a sequel per se. --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Article work Part II
The expansion is proceeding well so far. I've filled in my own details from watching the VEOH clips. Good job. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like your doing a first-rate job. Keep up the good work. I'll continue to contribute to this article as I find more information.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC))


 * One thought regarding Japanese troops landing on the US West Coast. From what I've been able to discern, in the books on which the series is based, the Japanese military launches an invasion of the Western United States to free Japanese-Americans who were interned during the war. However, I'm can't determine this occurred in the television series.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC))
 * I know it did not...Kyokujitsu no Kantai clips are also up on VEOH, and I tried downloading both series on the Veoh web player, I couldn't get in. Plus only the last few clips of Konpeki no Kantai are up and running.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * HS, sitrep: - I've installed the full Veoh player and DL'd up to episode 16 so far, but have watched only the first ten via Winamp (though there's a problem with EP11's format). --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I've been concertrating on adding historical context for the material in the series. Keep up the good work.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC))
 * I think you need books to back up the Alternate Events refs, just to be on the safe side.


 * Some of the refs contain links to Wikipedia articles that contain book references. But I'll begin to add them to this article just to be safe.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Ok, latest: the guy who uploaded all Konpeki eps on Veoh has suddenly vanished, and I have only got 27/32 episodes. I'm getting all 15 Kyokujitsu eps from another guy and I hope his account's not blocked. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The effort you're putting into this is comendable. I'm sorry I can't be of more help (aside from the fact that I don't speak Japanese, finding these on the Internet is exceedingly difficult. I've been looking for unofficial subtitles and/or summaries of this series but I have so far been unsuccessful. I will notify you if I find anything useful.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Article work Part III
I've actually downloaded the final five episodes of the series via torrent. do you want the link to the torrent page? It also includes Kyokujitsu no Kantai. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, please link the torrent page. I've only seen a few clips of the series on Youtube and I'd like to watch a full episode. I'll imagine that these epsiodes don't include subtitles (unless they are fan-subbed) but they would be interesting to watch.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC))
 * They don't. I couldn't link the torrent page without being removed, but the diff where I put it is here --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspected that Wikipedia probably doesn't look too favourably on file-sharing. But thanks for the link.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Hey, I've found a special section in a JA article that promptly explains the timeline of the series. Check section eight. If you thought some articles here had a lot of lists about in-universe stuff, this compiles everything about Konpeki no Kantai. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths
Great work on the latest additions! --JeffJ (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths
Great work on the latest additions! --JeffJ (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hope to add more in the near future.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight
Hyperion - the article on Canadian Union of Public Employees is supposed to be about the national union, its history and activities. Devoting more than 1/2 of the article to Israel is a violation of WP:Undue Weight, particularly since the resolutions you are writing about were only passed by one section, CUPE Ontario rather than CUPE National. The Israel resolutions are a very small part of CUPE's 40 year history. If you want to write a few sections on strikes CUPE has led that would be more appropriate than expanding an already too long section on what is essentially a tangent. Dodge rambler (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Try CUPE Ontario and disinvestment from Israel instead. Dodge rambler (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize the separate page for this issue (i.e. disinvestment) was still operational. I thought somebody redirected it back to the original article (which is why I placed this information there.). Thanks for pointing this out.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

Islam and antisemitism revert
Before reverting an edit where the summary specifically says there is agreement to remove perhaps it would be wise to check the talk page to see what that agreement was. The quote was removed because it is based on a primary source, a translated speech, and was OR as no secondary source makes any reference to these remarks as having anything to do with the topic of the article. This was agreed by everybody on the talk page. Please either self-revert or justify your revert here where you will see that it was agreed by myself, G-Dett, and Jayjg that at least this should be removed.  nableezy  - 06:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

MEMRI is used as a source throughout Wikipedia. If you have any evidence that this was mistranslated or misrepresented, feel free to present it. Second, MEMRI does not analyse, offer comments, and make remarks regarding this quote. They simple provide a translation. While MEMRI is certainly selective about what articles they translate, their translations are considered accurate. More importantly, Qaradawi made this remark on a television show (i.e. a public forum) broadcast by Al-Jazerra, which is considered a relatively open and accurate media source in the Arab World. Finally, Qaradawi's comments are certainly hostile towards Jews - this, combined with the fact that he is one of the most promnient Muslim leaders in the world (i.e. he's notable).

I understand your concern about the dead link - I am adding another link to MEMRITV. Registration is required to view the video but you can see it in full at: http://3arabtv.com/3arabtv/islam/view/-BH5SCUg3r8/Sheikh_Yousef_Al-Qaradhawi.html. I've also added links about this statement to Newsmax, the Times, and the JTA.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC))
 * My concern is not the deadlink, if you thought that you didnt read the discussion. My concern is that you are using a primary source to support a premise that no secondary source does. No secondary source has related these remarks to the topic of "Islam and antisemitism" and not everything a Muslim says that is antisemitic belongs on that page. I am going to revert your edit as there is consensus for the removal of that quote, and likely will be for most of that section.  nableezy  - 21:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read the link to the Times article? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5678764.ece) That is a secondary source and it clearly link's Qaradhawi's comments to anti-Semitism. And don't forget, Qaradhawi is not some joe blow - he is one of the most regarded Islamic thinkers in the world.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC))
 * I just saw your additions and raised the issue on the talk page. I said the Times and JTA are fine, but your newsmax source is garbage. I understand he is a cleric, or important thinker, or whatever, but his making an antisemitic statement is related to Islam and antisemitism how? But really we should discuss this on the talk page. I was just annoyed you reverted without even looking at the talk page.  nableezy  - 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll admit I should have looked more closely at the talk page before reverting and I understand why you were annoyed. I've already removed the newsmax source (you were right, it is garbage). Anyways, when one of the most important and well-known Muslim leaders in the world makes this kind of statement against Jews on an internationally broadcast TV show, don't you think that qualifies as a link between Islam and Anti-Semitism?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

(Again, just by reading your talk page, I don't mean to be intrusive) Why are you trying find a "link between Islam (the faith of a largely peaceful 1.2 billion people) and Anti-Semitism (an ideology of hate that is not particular to any religion)"?VR talk  03:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was not trying to "link between... Islam and Anti-Semitism." Islam and anti-semitism is the title of the article (and I didn't create this article) and it documents tensions between Islam and Jews during the past 1400 years. The simple fact is that Muslims and Jews haven't always gotten along and currently, a number of Muslim leaders hold extremely hostile views towards Jews. Simply dimissing these views, in my view, is unwise. This does not mean that all Muslims (or even a significant number) are anti-semitic. I have met many Muslims while at University and have worked alongside several at my work - none of them hold anti-semitic views and most have even criticised Muslim leaders who make anti-semitic statements.

With regards to your allegation that I am trying to link Islam and anti-semitism simply because I contributed to the afore mentioned article, I would point out that there is also a Christianity and antisemitism article. Are you going to accuse people who edit this article of trying to link Christianity and Anti-Semitism? I suggest you be more careful before making accusations against me.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC))
 * I only made the above remark in response to your statement "don't you think that qualifies as a link between Islam and Anti-Semitism". Perhaps those articles need to be renamed. Because when one says Islam, one generalizes the faith of all 1.2 billion people. There are other words to refer to Muslim antisemites, e.g. Islamist, radical Muslim, Islamic extremist etc.VR talk  23:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You have clearly misunderstood - the purpose of this article is to document anti-semitism that has (unfortunately) existed or been promoted by practicers of Islam (just has it has in Christianity). The reason I used the language "link between Islam and Anti-Semitism" because I believed that when a leading Muslim religious figure in the world (in this case Qaradawi) openly calls for Genocide against Jews on an internationally televised program, it (again, unfortunately) is certainly related to the purpose of this article (another editor seemed to disagree with me on this point). This certainly does not mean that Islam is antisemitic in nature or that such views are held by all Muslims (and I personally believe that most Muslims do not share Qaradawi's views - I would include that in the article, but personal opinions are not allowed in Wikipedia) Now, if you are upset with the article itself, feel free to recommend that it be changed or removed. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC))

Reverting
Hello. While what you are doing may be right, it is in violation of Wikipedia policies (see WP:Edit War). I have created an environment for you and the other editor involved User:Acsrosa to discuss the issue; please see Talk:Johan_Galtung, and try to resolve the argument without reverting the article. Thanks! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have posted the following statement on Talk:Johan_Galtung. I await a response from User:Acsrosa:
 * I see that User:Acsrosa has claimed that she is Mr. Galtung's assistant. Aside from the fact that this may be a conflict of interest violation, simply stating that Mr. Galtung wants this deleted is not sufficient. Mr. Galtung does not have a veto over what is placed on this page. If Acsrosa could provide a reason why Mr. Galtung wants this removed (e.g. is it copyright protected, inaccurate, improperly sourced), I'd be happy to listen to it. I won't revent this material for a few days while I await Acsrosa's response.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

... which is somewhat more than a semantic distinction
You wrote: "You still haven't answered my question: how can you boycott institutions without boycotting individual academics? People claiming this are simply using semantics to cloak discrimination with political correctness."

I believe that I've answered this question already, but I'll try to clarify: The boycott is only intended to target Israeli universities on an institutional level. If, for instance, the University of Toronto was to announce a joint research project with Tel Aviv University, the pro-boycott side would be justified under its own logic in opposing such an arrangement.

The boycott is not intended to target individual academics. This means that it is not justifiable under the logic of the boycott campaign to oppose the right of a professor from Tel Aviv University to attend a conference at the University of Toronto.

The distinction seems clear enough to me, although I realize that some people on both sides of the argument have misconstrued and misunderstood the nature of the campaign.

And I'll add, once again, that I am not taking a position on the campaign itself. CJCurrie (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that Miriam Shlesinger of Bar-Ilan University and Professor Gideon Toury of Tel Aviv University would agree with you that the boycott is against "institutions" and not individuals? However, since Canadian universities prohibit discrimination (as well as constructive discrimination) based on nationality, its quite possible that this is a boycott is words only. Mind you, the fact that CUPE Ontario proposed a plan to ban Israeli professors (it only backed down after severe criticism) suggests that those who advocate boycotts of Israeli "institutions" are either extremely disingenious or naive.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
 * CUPE Ontario did not, in fact, propose a plan to ban Israeli professors. Sid Ryan indicated his support for such a strategy in a public statement; this was based on his misinterpretation of the boycott strategy. He later corrected himself. I don't think anyone would dispute that he handled the situation quite poorly in the initial instance; that said, CUPE Ontario as a whole never endorsed the idea.
 * I'm not sufficiently familiar with the Shlesinger/Toury situation to comment, and I'm not certain that Canadian university policies would prevent the implementation of institutional boycotts. (I'm not convinced that anyone could given a definitive opinion on the latter point, actually.) CJCurrie (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have to disagree that "CUPE Ontario did not, in fact, propose a plan to ban Israeli professors" and that Sid Ryan simply misinterpretated the the boycott strategy.


 * Sid Ryan didn't come up with the idea to boycott Israeli academices. It originated from CUPE's Ontario University Workers Coordinating Committee which announced plans to introduce a resolution that would ban Israeli academics from speaking, teaching or researching at Ontario universities in January 2009.
 * Janice Folk-Dawson, chairwoman of the university workers committee, stated that resolution will protect the quality of education by preventing Israeli academics from professing biased views and that support for the resolution "is coming from the rank-and-file members, not just the leadership."
 * Ryan subsequently stated that "Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general."
 * Several professors, including Michael Neumann and Judy Haiven, openly expressed support for the resolution. Haiven stated that "the many silent professors in Israel who refuse to criticize their own government for human rights violations and for murdering Arab civilians should not be welcomed."

Your statement that that the plan (and support for the plan) to boycott Israeli professors was limited to a misintrepretation by Sid Ryan is difficult to believe. Ryan did not originate this idea, the CUPE's Ontario University Workers Coordinating Committee did, and they received support from a number of sources (including Sid Ryan, Janice Folk-Dawson, Judy Haiven and Michael Neumann who didn't mince words about banning Israeli professors). Again, it was only after intense criticism that this resolution was withdrawn and replaced with one that called for a boycott of "institutions."

I suppose that the fact that resolution to ban on Israeli professors was quickly withdrawn indicates that a this idea does not have as much support as its supporters thought. In any event, the 20,000 university workers represented by CUPE Ontario include campus staff but almost no full-time faculty, which has made many observers (myself included) curious as to what practical effect the boycott could have (i.e. it may be a boycott in words only).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

When Worlds Collide
Hyperionsteel - I noticed your temporary change to When Worlds Collide (novel) and then making this change to the film. In the novel there are two planetary bodies (on page 28). In the film this was changed to a star with an accompanying planet. Improbable as it might be, the two planets could have behaved as Wylie described. As for the film, I can't guess why Bronson Alpha was changed to Bellus, a star. Wylie was not involved in the film. And yes, a star's passing through the solar system probably would have destroyed all of Sol's planets. I would guess that the film's writers made this change thinking a star would be more dramatic. I wouldn't say the inaccuracies were due to a limited understanding of astrophysics in 1951. The inaccuracies were simply sloppiness on the part of the writers. GroveGuy (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Thanks for the information - I always enjoy it when people take an interest in my contributions. Unfortunately, my additions have been removed from the film's page on the grounds that they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Oh well.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

DAFKA
Thanks for your comments and contributions to improving the DAFKA article after I commented on it at the WP:BLP noticeboard. Matchups 02:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to add more to this and similar articles if additional information becomes available.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

Quick note
FYI, you're technically in violation of the 3RR on the Alykhan Velshi page. I'm not going to report you on it since I assume it was an honest mistake; just be cautious on this front in the future. CJCurrie (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider some of my edits on this article were revisions as opposed to reverts, but I realize that there is a very fine line regarding this distinction. Regardless, thank you for pointing this out. I will endeavour to be more careful in the future.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

AfD nomination of Army of the Southern Cross
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Army of the Southern Cross. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Army of the Southern Cross. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You recent edits to Miriya Parina Sterling‎‎ article
Hi, Hyperionsteel.

I noticed that today you added two paragraphs to this articles which apart from lacking source were concerned with speculations rather than facts. Speculations do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

I took the liberty of undoing your edits. You are still more than welcome to contribute constructive and well-sourced material to wikipedia.

— Fleet Command (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of reinstating some of the information you've removed but I have deleted the speculation you seem to be concerned about.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)_

File:Miriya Parina Sterling.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Miriya Parina Sterling.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

University of Ottawa / Coulter
Your input would be appreciated at Talk:University of Ottawa. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see my recent statements on the talk page in question. Thank you for letting me know.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Israel lobby in the United States
I just saw this article. And made some edits. the I noticed that you had noticed some while back what i saw today, that the article is almost entirely based on Walt and Mearshimer. The page needs some fresh eyes, and a lot of work.AMuseo (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP
Hello. When something is removed as a BLP violation you should not simply reinsert the material. Quoting WP:BLP: ''To ensure that material about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.'' Please do not restore that material without consensus. As it stands 3 different editors object to one of the quotes with you reverting multiple times to restore it.  nableezy  - 21:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you reinsert the material again I will report you for edit-warring.  nableezy  - 22:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was prior to your self-revert. Sorry for the harshness.  nableezy  - 22:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I will agree to remove the quote regarding Al-Qaradawi statements on the Torah. However, I will point out that if a person were to make similar statements about the Koran, they would certainly be labeled as islamphobic (but I'm sick of arguing about that).

The remaining quotes that you deleted are not questioned by any of the other editors. Removing them simply because they are sourced from MEMRI is not an acceptable excuse. If you only wish to remove the quote that was actually discussed on the talk page, I'll agree to that. However, the remaining quotes should not have been removed without further consultation.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC))
 * The other quotes suffer the same flaw as the rest. No reliable secondary source calls them antisemitic.  nableezy  - 22:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, MEMRI is secondary source. They have done the research and posted the material. Now, if I were to personally research these remarks and cite myself as a source, that would certainly be OR. However, citing material from a research institute is not OR.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC))

Allan Rock
Hey there, just letting you know that I reverted your edits to Allan Rock, for a number of reasons. However, before opening that can of worms, can we finish the debate at at University of Ottawa? Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't copy and paste the entire section. Rather, I only copied a selection (albeit a large one) regarding Rock's personal statements regarding this incident. If you feel any of the material is libelous, inaccurate, or improperly sourced, please let me know.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC))


 * I don't think the material is libelous, inaccurate, or improperly sourced, but I think that your addition would be giving the situation undue weight, which is really something we can only resolve through discussion. Just because we can write sourced material on certain things, it doesn't mean that we should: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." In any case, as I mentionned above, I'd prefer to discuss this once Talk:University of Ottawa has been dealt with. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Statements on Zionism and Jews section
Hi Hyperionsteel, I want to inform you that I have reverted your edits on Talal Abu-Ghazaleh's page regarding the statements on Zionism and Jews. I can assure that the mentioned references are very weak and the translation is not as what he said. Also, there is no need to get into political views on people profiles if they are not politicians. Thanks for Understanding TAGITI (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My response
I've again reviewed the sources for these statements and they appear to be valid. Please clarify why you consider them to be "very weak." Do you have any evidence suggesting that the MEMRI translation is inaccurate or that the Turkish article is incorrect? (If you do please post it).

With regard to your claim that "there is no need to get into political views on people profiles if they are not politicians," I do not recall this being a rule in Wikipedia. Whether or not a person is a politician is irrelevant - what matters is whether statements attributed to a person are a) accurate, b) properly sourced, and c) notable.

Again, if you have specific evidence that the statements attributed to Mr. Abu Ghazaleh in the article is inaccurate, please present it - I certainly do not want to post any information that is libelous, copyrighted, or inaccurate. However, statements such as these made by anyone (politician or not) are not offlimits for Wikipedia. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC))


 * I don’t want to start a debate. However, those sources are really weak and I guess all media agencies want always to have a scoop.

The video of the mentioned interview on the Decision Makers TV is here Video. You can watch it and decide by yourself. I know Mr. Abu-Ghazaleh well and I am sure that this is not the accurate translation and citation for what he said. Thanks. TAGITI (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, please clarify why the sources cited are "really weak?" I know this is a sensitive topic but I'd appreciate it if you could cite some specific evidence to indicate that the material in question is inaccurate. Otherwise, I see no reason to remove the material I added at the present time.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC))


 * I have provided you with a link for the video of the interview. How can you decide without watching the video? I think it is a clear evidence to indicate that the material in the statements is inaccurate. I think that the source that I have provided is reliable. TAGITI (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the video. Unfortunately, there are no english subtitles so I am unable to ascertain its content. If you can find a copy of the video with an different english translation from the one provided by MEMRI, then it can be added as counter-evidence. But without a reliable alternate translation, the video as is does not warrant the removal of the material in question.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC))


 * It is not appropriate to mention the point and its opposite within the same article. This will mislead the users and make the articles and the pages a place for debates. The article that you have provided is based on the interview that I have watched. I didn’t cite other sources that are related to other subjects. I am using the same source that you are using. However, the interview that I have provided is considering as the source of yours. Ramoooz (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with all views that posted on your user page and subscribe fully to your ideas.On this occasion, I wish to inform you that Mr. Abu-Ghazaleh also endorses your reviews and expressions. However, I think that placing these statements doesn't serve anybody. Because Mr. Abu-Ghazaleh didn't make any further similar statements, I think that it is the time to remove it and put end to this. Thank You For your understanding. --Ramoooz (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with you. Mr. Abu-Ghazaleh's statements on Jews, in addition to being properly sourced, are notable for their implications. He is not making casual statements, but rather is making serious charges (i.e. "the research centers – albeit quietly and in secret – realize that the US sank into this quagmire, as a result of the Jewish hatred for Americans." This is a very remarkable statement, which is why I included it in this article.
 * Also, contrary to your claim, Mr. Abu-Ghazaleh has made other statements about Zionism and Jews since mid-2010 (e.g. Abu-Ghazaleh Tackles Global Economy and Arab Spring, and more seriously here Syria today does not look like the Syria of ten years ago where he states that "That is the essence of their faith, which says that the more harm the Jew does to a non-Jew, the more it will ride high with God, and that is their approach to policy."(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC))

Comment from VR
(I came upon your talk page, after you recently added MEMRI sourced material to another article) Hyperion Steel, I must question whether MEMRI can generally be considered a reliable source. Sure, in some case, when it quoted by others, it can be. But they have a large amount of "translations". There have been instances of deliberate mistranslation by MEMRI. So I suggest, if you are to use MEMRI as a source, then find a second source to back that up. If MEMRI is the only source out there that talks about this, then it becomes quite suspicious.VR talk  11:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. While I respect your point of view, I have to disagree. With a handful of exceptions, MEMRI's translations are accurate. While the few cases you have pointed out (many of which are derived from sources which are themselves are hardly impartial (e.g. Norman Finklestein) may suggest that MEMRI is not perfect (your conclusion that MEMRI deliberately falsifys translations is itself questionable, but let's leave that aside), it is wrong to conclude that all MEMRI translations are suspect. Also, in the cases mentioned, there is a specific response given for each alleged mistranslation. In contrast, I have asked many times if there is any evidence that MEMRI mistranslated the material for this article and I have not received any responses (except for statements claiming that the translation is inaccurate but without citing any evidence). For the record, I have searched the internet myself and found no evidence that this particular translation is inaccurate. Furthermore, with regards to this article, MEMRI is quoting from an internationally televised interview (i.e. this is not a vague or obscure source). Anyway, I welcome any further comments you may have.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC))
 * All unreliable sources are mostly accurate. It is the inaccuracies, however few, that may (or may not) tarnish a source's reputation.
 * Also, per WP:ONUS, there usually aren't reliable sources disproving every unreliable source out there. The test for reliability is: it is unreliable until proven reliable (or it is inaccurate, until proven accurate), not the other way around.
 * "MEMRI is quoting from an internationally televised interview" Awesome! Can I have the link to the source that published that interview? I.e. If the interview was with Al-Jazeera, can I have the link to it on Al-Jazeera's website? (The previous is rhetorical question; it is meant to be answered on specific discussion pages, not here).
 * VR talk  03:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

MEMRI is a reliable source
With all due respect, I suggest you take a look at this section MEMRI more closely.

There are only a handful of specific cases cited that apparently involve mistranslations (one from a 2007 children's program, another involves several essays written in 2002 by Professor Halim Barakat, and a third from a 2000 translation of an interview given by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to al-Ahram al-Arabi). These three cases, while notable, certainly do not mean that every translation made by MEMRI is inaccurate, doctored, or selectively edited. MEMRI has translated thousands of videos and articles, nearly all of which are not disputed by even their critics.

In fact, most of this section is simply polemics against MEMRI (usually accusing them of being Nazi propagandaists) that have little substance behind them. Also, the critics include such people as Juan Cole, a radical university professor, Brian Whitaker, a columnist for The Guardian who, based on the articles he has written that are posted on his website is hardly an impartial observer, and of course, Norman Finkelstein, who has described Israel as "a lunatic state" and has opined that he believes Israel "...has come out of the boils of the hell, a satanic state."

I'd also point out that almost none of this criticism is taken from mainstream sources. Rather, much of it is taken from blogs, editorials, and far-left news websites.

In conclusion, labelling MEMRI as inaccurate or unreliable based on a handful of mistranslated cases and the opinions of people who clearly despise Israel (e.g. Norman "satanic state" Finkelstein) is difficult to accept. I suggest that unless a specific translation is in question (as in the 3 cited examples), MEMRI can be considered a reliable source as long as it is cited as the source of the translation.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

Regarding the wikipedia entry for DAFKA (Defending America for Knowledge and Action)
This is from the horse's mouth, so to speak, Lee Kaplan. I can be reached at leekaplan@dafka.org.

1. The first section of the article on DAFKA states that local pr-Jewish organizations "distance" themselves from DAFKA. This is untrue nor substantiated by the footnote [1] that leads to an article in a leftist newspaper that is anti-Israel. The article only says that other Jewish organizations refused to comment on DAFKA. That does not mean they do not work with the organization or myself and they, in fact, do so. The comment was inferred by whoever wrote the original article which was little more than a smear article from a anti-Israel activist. I would like the comment that these organizations "distance themselves" stricken. Even so, this was only in one article and not representative of accurate research about my non-profit.

2. Accusations of racism are baselessa nd a red herring by anti-Israel activists who keep trying to smear the site. The comment that the Arabs are too primitive to make peace is quoted out of context; the explanation for the rest of the remark is that suicide bombings, misogyny, child sacrifice and even slavery are routinely practiced in the Arab world and until this changes, there will never be peace. This is not racist and is borne out by current events.

3. The previous commentator says a court case that was heard by five judges who found libel against me has no merit. I think the commentator was in fact the loser of that lawsuit or a friend who tried turning an article about my nonprofit into a page on why he should not have lost a case that proved he was guilty of libel and for which he paid me thousands of dollars. In any case, the article is about DAFKA that has members and a Board of Directors and not just about me anyway.

4. The article reference about Duke University lies by omission. While John Burness did make some comments attacking me, I proved in the article he was covering up for the ISM and lied on several occasions, including being present and assisting in a planning session where I exposed him while I was undercover. In any case, that is also about me as an individual and I did not represent DAFKA but was working as a journalist for someone else, so it's questionable the paragraph even belongs there.

5.You will find anti-Israel activists constantly trying to smear the site. The statement that sources like Frontpage Magazine have no validity are not based on any fact. The site pays for articles and is very reputable. I have archives all over the world of my articles as a journalist from the Israel National News to Canada Free Press. Articles that are not researched and provable (I record at most sites and keep notes) would never get published.

6. I will send you updated new info for this page in coming weeks.

I would appreciate your changing that comment about "distancing" by my fellow Jewish organizations then refreezing the opening paragraph. I will get back to you later. I will include letters of reference for my journalistic work from Israel.

Thanking you in advance I am...

Lee Kaplan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.227.110 (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To MR Kaplan
To Mr. Kaplan (I'll assume good faith (i.e. that you are indeed Lee Kaplan))

I'm not sure what I did to deserve the above statements. I have not edited the DAFKA article for almost a year. Furthermore, I have never used Wikipedia to accuse you or your organization of racism. On the contrary, I initially included a far more detailed account of your work in my edits, but these were removed by other contributors. I have never claimed that Frontpagemag has no credibility. Regarding Burgess, my original contribution detailed your specific allegations - however, another editor removed them on the grounds that they violated WP:BLP (Burgess's, not yours). However, I've reviewed my edits and I cannot find anything that reflects badly on you or your work.

With regard to your concerns that about the statement that Jewish groups "distance" themselves from you, I did not even insert this statement. As far as I can tell, this was added by another user. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defending_America_for_Knowledge_and_Action&action=historysubmit&diff=234505597&oldid=201837351

If you have a specific complaint about an edit I made to your article, I will be happy to hear it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

Nancy Scheper-Hughes
You added a note at Nancy Scheper-Hughes saying, "...Israel acknowledged that organs had been taken from during the 1990s..." but you left out a word or words between "from" and "during" to say who the organs had been taken from. — O'Dea 15:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

R-Type Tactics II: Operation Bitter Chocolate
Hello, I'm expanding this article now, but the stuff from the JA article regarding the actors seems confusing. Ive raised this on the WPVG discussion, no takers. Hope to work with you once more in this case. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familar with this article, but I will see what I can do to contribute.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC))
 * No problem. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Trond Andresen
Hyperionsteel, I reverted your revert, so to speak. In my opinion the content you restored is not of sufficient value for this BLP, for two main reasons--it's not very well referenced to secondary sources, and therefore does not rise to the level of notability. Especially in BLPs we should be careful not to start including every single detail, even if it is in sensitive areas: one Gilad Atzmon is more than enough. Also, I don't think you needed to use the word "excuse" in your edit summary, but that's my personal opinion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Restoring. This has become a significant issue. And Alan Dershowitz is a prominent humans right advocate. Andresen's statements on Jews are also extremely controversial, and are worthy of attention. If you feel any of the information is incorrect or libelous, please advise me. However, the secondary sources cited include national newspapers that meet Wikipedia's requirements for both notability and reliability.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC))

I'll agree to remove the paragraph regarding Mr. Dershowitz's comments on the boycott, but the material specific to Mr. Andresen, including his views on the "tribal mentality that is so prevalent among Jews" and that "that many [Jews] have a tribalistic outlook", will remain.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Well, here's the thing: you may say his statements are controversial (and you may well be right), but there are no secondary sources to prove that they are (WP:V...), and despite your claim above, the subject's own words are quoted from a letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal. That's simply not good enough for a BLP. The Dershowitz material isn't (or doesn't appear to be) directly related to the subject, so I am glad you left it out--but it seems to me that by picking some of the subject's quotes (because undoubtedly that person could be quoted for days) you are allowing a certain POV, a kind of incrimination, to seep into the article. How about this: as soon as you have a secondary source that reports on the subject, you can reinstate whatever is deemed notable by said reliable source (that is, an independent source!), OK? I really don't want to fight or edit war over this, but it is a big deal and I want us to stay on the safe side of the BLP policy. If you think I'm wrong, we can bring this up on the BLP noticeboard--but please do so before you restore matter that in my opinion is not properly sourced. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it not properly sourced? I'm citing an article published by Alan Dershowitz in the Wall Street Journal and a responding letter written by Mr. Andresen himself (also published in the Wall Street Journal). However, I will agree to leave the article as is for the time being. Also, I appreciate that you are willing to debate this rationally, unlike User talk:Trondandresen, who has falsely (and rather bizarrely) accused me of using Wikipedia as a "propoganda [sic]tool for Zionist harassment".(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC))

Rabkin's bio
Hi,

As a former student of Professor Rabkin, I thought his bio should be more complete. His consulting for NATO and OECD may be more important than his support for Queers in Toronto. Moreover, the original post focuses on his opinions on the Middle East, which may be less important than his opinions on Canadian politics. I would like to balance and complete the post. How shall I go about it? Shall I merge both posts?

Luddite 1776 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luddite1776 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the material that you added is not allowed in Wikipedia in its current form. The main issue here is No original research. Inserting your own summary and analysis of Mr. Rabkin's work is original research - "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." You did not cite any sources - Now, if you find a reliable third party publication (e.g. Newspaper, Television show) that discusses his work, you can cite this. My second concern was that the language you used was a violation of Neutral point of view. Finally, you removed all of the other material that was taken from third-party sources. If you want to add material to this article that meets the OR and NPOV guidelines, please do so (I agree this article should be expanded).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC))

BLPN - Barash
Hi, there was/is a report about this BLP and the content that you replaced. As there were objections to the content at the BLPN I have again removed it, please do not replace it without discussion and support at BLP noticeboard here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have posted my response here: the BLP noticeboard here.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

1RR
Hello. You violated the 1RR on Middle East Media Research Institute. All articles in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area are under a 1 revert rule. There is a notice to that effect on the talk page. You may be blocked for violating the revert restriction. You can, if you wish to rectify your violation, self-revert your latest revert. Thanks,  nableezy  - 22:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you plan on self-reverting or not?  nableezy  - 00:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll revert it for the time being. You are correct that this article has a 1RR rule. We can continue our debate on the talk page.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Thank you.  nableezy  - 00:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

blp thread
_Sallah Soltan - Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources
An opinion column in the Washington Times is not a reliable source for any purpose except for the author's opinion. Please remove it or I will remove it again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not the only source cited - in fact, there are about 9-10 sources in total. And this isn't a matter of opinion - it is about Qaradawi's statement supporting Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust. If you believe this statement is incorrect, please cite a source to indicate this. Otherwise, it is certainly properly sourced and relevant.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC))


 * None of that is relevant. I removed the Washington Times as a source because it's an opinion column, not a WP:RS. Period. If you have other sources, great. Now, please remove it, or I will. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If this is solely about the Washington times source, then I will remove that reference.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC))


 * That's all it's about. Please review the page's edit history. I removed that one source with this explanation and you wrote "Please stop removing properly sourced material". I haven't removed one word of text, just a single source that doesn't meet WP:RS. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the edit log, I now see that you only wanted to remove that reference (and not the statement). I jumped to the conclusion that you wanted to remove the entire statement (as the previous editor of this article did). I apologize for not reading your edit more carefully.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC))


 * No problem. Thanks for taking the opinion column out. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Such article requires sources from historians. Simon Wisenthal Centre or Memri are not such sources. 81.247.73.115 (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This section of the article deals with Contemporary (i.e Modern) Relationships. There are plenty of sources cited besides MEMRI and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre that cite Qaradawi's words. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC))


 * There cannot be a contemporary relationship between the Nazi regime and anything given the Nazi regime stopped in 1945. Eventually some Nazi personnalities survived but they are all dead today. And above only historians (and not journalists and certainly not Memry or Wiesenthal Centre) are wp:rs sources for such a topic.
 * 91.180.120.246 (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please show me the WP that this article can only contain sources based on historians. Also, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is a recognized for its documentation of Anti-Semitism. This source in particular is an analysis of support for the Nazi Regime within the Arab world, stating with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hassan Al-Banna up until present day. This, combined with the other sources cited, more than meet Wikipedia's requirements for RS.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Also, MEMRI and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre are cited as sources throughout Wikipedia. If you have evidence that the information cited in this article is incorrect, please provide it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC))
 * If Simon Wiesenthal Centre and other would report reliable information, that would be reported in academic sources, eg by historians and it would not be difficult to provide these.
 * You are perfectly aware of this given there is a discussion about this on the wp:rs noticeboard.
 * These references and the information that I removed are controversial.
 * If you are here for wikipédia, use academic source. If you are here to protect the poor little Israeli are to develop a hate of Muslims, go on the way you proceed.
 * 81.247.84.166 (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore that last comment of yours, as it is both personal attack and nonesense, and only shows that you now resorting to baseless accusations to support your argument (which is quite sad).
 * Getting back on topic, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is a reliable source, as is MEMRI. You keep stating that only academics and historians can be cited for this article. Please cite the WP policy that indicates this. MEMRI and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre are used as sources throughout Wikipedia (and they are not the only sources cited). If you have any evidence that the information cited here is inaccurate, please provide it. Otherwise, stop removing material that is properly sourced by Wikipedia standards. If you don't like it, feel free to file a complaint with Wikipedia (or at least register).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Also, as has been pointed out in the discussion you references, propaganda doesn't mean inaccurate or false (in fact, MEMRI's translations are considered accurate, even by its critics) but rather that they don't present a balanced point of view or are selective in their coverage. More importantly, other sources, including mainstream media outlets, have reported the same information - thus, MEMRI is not the only source. If you have any evidence that the information cited from MEMRI or the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is incorrect, please cite it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC))
 * One more note, the author of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre article, Harold Brackman, is a historian who has written numerous books on Jews and Anti-semitism.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC))

1RR
I suggest you self revert some of your edits there. I can understand if you feel they are inappropriate, but 1RR is taken super serious (I know this, trust me). I haven't been able to participate in the discussion anymore because of other stuff, but you need to know you'll lose your admin rights very fast with those kinds of edits. Wikifan Be nice 17:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

According to this article's talk page, this article doesn't have a 1RR rule. I would assume that the 3RR rule still applies (or am I wrong about that?).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC))


 * You are correct. I've only been following Middle East Media Research Institute and in my tired state thought those edits were from that article because I'm so used to seeing you there. 3RR applies outside of ARBPIA, though other conflict-areas have 3RR. My bad I guess. Wikifan Be nice  08:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. In fact, I appreciate your concern; The penalty of violating a 1RR rule is pretty steep (even if violated unintentionally). I brought up the issue on the article's talk page to make sure. You could have easily been right, as this article could (and not unreasonably) be considered relevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which means its always best to be safe then sorry.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Steep it is. I might be topic-banned within the next few days for violating 1RR. Always be very careful...even if the edits are questionable. Wikifan Be nice  22:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, I was reverting edits from an anonymous user, so there is a little more leeway. But thanks for watching out for me. I hope you don't get topic-banned - your help and contributions on articles involving the Arab-Israeli conflict have been greatly appreciated.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Thanks Hyper. Wikifan Be nice  00:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In John Mearsheimer, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page David Harris (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) 13:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

William C. Bradford
Hi - the article improvements were from multiple editors, please don't revert them all without discussion. There is a report about the BLP at the WP:BLPN here] - noticeboard. Thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Due to BLP concerns (which given the nature of the controversy, are certainly valid), I will not reinstate any information that potentially violates the BLP. However, I will reexamine the article to determine if some of the information that was removed can be reinstated.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

== You have reverted twice to the same version. The tight timing indicates you have not read the sources provided in the second version. Please do so immediately and do not violate the three-revert rule. ==

Re Ezra Levant, if you think a particular statement is not backed by the sources, remove it, e.g. "Harper uses Levant's front groups for astroturfing support for extremely controversial private sector projects such as Keystone XL and Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, while publicly denying that he or the "Harper government" takes any position on these projects, which is clearly false." This seems justified to me, but I've read the sources, and you have not.

You have reverted twice to the same version. The tight timing indicates you have not read the sources provided in the second version. Please do so immediately and do not violate the three-revert rule.

You should read Talk:Ezra Levant and review the detailed discussion of his links to Stephen Harper, the "ethical" rhetoric, and so on, before you edit this again. Add a "citation needed" tag to any statements you think require it.


 * Evidently you are unfamilar with Wikipedia rules. They prohibit the use of original research, POV language, and sources which do not meet the RS requirements. If you continue to add material such as this, I will continue to remove it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Your concerns are mostly addressed. You have reverted several different versions of Ezra Levant apparently without reading.  You are obviously capable of more discernment, for instance you made excessive edits to Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines  but they were at least not wholesale bald reverts with no information about what you think is still objectionable.  Please apply that same approach with Ezra Levant also.  You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule.  Please check your own biases.


 * Re: RS requirements, the First Nations groups themselves are grossly under-reported in the Canadian mainstream media. They operate largely their own media.  The Save the Fraser  contains a copy of the actual declaration signed by the Nations themselves, which is often referred to in news articles, many of which were cited.  To quote the actual article is legitimate reportage of a legal document or declaration.  Certainly you can't write about any such document without actually citing its words once in a while.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.46.232 (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems even racist and dismissive to censor out the First Nations' own chosen words w.r.t. Enbridge Northern Gateways Pipelines. Please review that edit.  There are no words that anyone else could write that could express clearly what their position actually is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.46.232 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Material that violates Wikipedia's rules on BLP must be removed immediately. Anyway, instead of making large scale reverts, I will instead remove paragraphs one at a time, and provide justification for each specific removal. I am aware of the 3RR rule, but reverting anonymous edits and/or removing material that violates BLP rules are exceptions to this rule.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
 * So you are calling me a racist for following Wikipedia's guidelines? That's pretty pathetic.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
 * No, but you may be a racist if you selectively apply Wikipedia's guidelines or claim you are a reliable arbiter of when they are "violated", or systematically dismiss sources such as First Nations media, or refuse to quote an actual legal document from a valid authority simply because it wasn't reported somewhere in the "white" media. Again, please review the sources of First Nations positions and read the actual "declaration" at Save The Fraser .  Then decide if the actual language of the declaration is relevant.  I would say it's more relevant than anything else in the article.
 * If you look at Wikipedia guidelines, you will see that Wikipedia is supposed to be based on mainstream sources; and not a forum for different groups to post their grievences and advocate their positions. If you have a mainstream source that cites the concerns of Canada's Native peoples regarding the pipeline, feel free to include it. In fact, many of the mainstream sources cited in the article include opinions and concerns from Canada's Native People (although you have arbitrarily dismissed this as the "white" media.
 * And for the record, your accusation that I am only citing the "white" media while suggesting that I am a "racist" is laughable due to its hypocracy; labelling all mainstream Canadian media sources as "white media" (when numerous people of colour (including many Native Canadians) contribute to and help produce its programming and news reports) isn't exactly a good starting point when you are accusing people of racism.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC))

January 2012
Your recent editing history at Ezra Levant shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Techman224 Talk  04:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I was reverting material initial added by an anonymous user (and later by a newly registered user) that violated Wikipedia's rules on original research, POV language, and non-RS sources. Since this article is a BLP, material that potentially violates these rules must be removed immediately.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC))


 * I suggest that you request page protection. This looks like it's turning into an Edit War. May I suggest Dispute resolution or if it needs administrative action, the Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks Techman224  Talk  04:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have placed a request for request page protection (semi-protection). Thank you for your suggestion.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC))


 * There is no excuse for removing valid source links that clearly satisfy WP:RS. Nor for several bald reverts when someone is clearly trying to provide sources and moderate language.  There is no "edit war" here, only two people reverting without reading.  Levant is a very controversial publicity-seeking public figure and there are few risks to actually reporting his real public position based on such sources.  It's hardly a typical BLP.
 * Please review Wikipedia's guidelines on what RS is required and BLP rules. Wikipedia is not an investigative magazine or a research project; It is an encyclopedia. Original research includes not only unsourced statements, but also the synthesis of different sources in order to reach a conclusion or make an argument. As for you claim that "It's hardly a typical BLP", I will point out that in Wikipedia, all BLPs are subject to the same rules (i.e. they are not divided into "typical" or non-typical categories that are subject to different rules).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

3RR at Khalid Amayreh
Your recent editing history at Khalid Amayreh shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. JFHJr (㊟) 02:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made two revisions in the last 24 hours (the third edit was an addition creating a new sub-section). I have not violated the 3RR rule. I was removing material that had been removed by JFHJr based on reasons (in my opinion) are not supportable. If you want to discuss this on the article's talk page, that is fine. I appreciate your concern about my potential violation of the 3RR rule, even though no violation has taken place. However, next time, I think you should simply suggest that an issue be discussed on the talk page, instead of immediately invoking threats for real (or in this case, imagined) violations of the 3RR rule.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Peace and conflict studies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Objectivity (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) 10:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Tamon Yamaguchi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hiroshi Abe (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) 10:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. When you recently edited Johan Galtung, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communist China (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) 10:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Francis Boyle
You deleted the interview excerpt about Joel Zinger, stating that YouTube is not an RS. By RS do you mean reliable source? And if so, ABC, CNN, FoxNews, and other supposedly credible sources post their videos on YouTube. Are they not reliable sources either? Moreover, why is a quotation taken directly from an interview of a person that you can see with your own eyes not reliable? Thanks. Kazemzad (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Kazemzad


 * Please see WP Perennial websites: YouTube and  WP: Video links for Wikipedia policy on Youtube as a reliable source. Certain Youtube videos, such as those from mainstream agencies and organizations (e.g. ABC, CNN, FoxNews) are generally considered reliable. However, your video is derived from something called the "Representative Press." This is certainly not a mainstream source, nor does it meet the requirements for notability (if it were a self-published source by Boyle, then perhaps it would qualify). More to the point, Wikipedia policy clearly states that "material in a video only available on YouTube includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources, then that material may be undue and inappropriate for Wikipedia."(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC))

Thank you for pointing out Wikipedia's regulations on YouTube sources to me; I'm a relatively new editor and was not aware of these. However, after reviewing the regulations, it is clear that this excerpt can be legally included, as there is no dispute on the reliability of the source: if you go to 0:53 of the video, you will start to hear Francis Boyle's voiceover, and then from 1:08 onward you will see the exact words I have quoted come directly from Boyle's mouth. Kazemzad (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Kazemzad

There are several issues here which I'm not sure you understand. Most importantly, is my final point that "material in a video only available on YouTube includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources, then that material may be undue and inappropriate for Wikipedia." A video posted solely on Youtube isn't a reliable source, regardless of the content of the video. Certainly, a such a long quote sourced solely from a youtube video doesn't respect notability requirements for Wikipedia. I'll agree not to remove this material entirely, but I intend to summarize it - again, a video posted solely on youtube isn't the best source. If you can find a written source for this (perhaps a transcript for the video), it would be a big help.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Charles Barron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Greenfield (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) 14:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. When you recently edited Joshua Treviño, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hilary Rose (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) 11:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.


 * Hamas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Jewish Journal


 * Islam and antisemitism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Jewish Journal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zafar Bangash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Tribune (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) 09:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Genocyber.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Genocyber.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reinserted the image into another section of the article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC))

BLP
Seriously, cut it out. BLP is a binding content policy. Deliberately damaging the reputations of living people is probably the worst possible way of going about demonstrating that your engagement in this discussion is in good faith. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 08:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How am I damaging the reputations of anyone. In the case of Shiv Chopra, I have cited an editorial from the National Post which criticizes Chopra's claims and the way the CHRC handled his case. Please clarify how am I damaging his reputation? Are you saying that he cannot be criticized? How am I acting in bad faith by quoting a nationally published mainstream newspaper which criticizing the way this case was handled?


 * Frankly, you are the one who is acting in bad faith be removing huge portions from numerous articles, without discussion, simply because you keep claiming (based on incredibly thin reasoning) that the National Post is not a reliable source, even though it meets this requirement under Wikipedia guidelines.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC))


 * In the interest of compromise, I have a proposition for the Shiv Chopra article - the "race-obsessed paranoiac" line can be removed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

Do not insert these BLP violations again. You have repeatedly reinserted unverifiable and controversial quotes, false claims about living people, and poorly sourced aspersions on their character(s). This is your last warning. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out numerous times before, I have provided proper sources for all of this material (it is not defamatory or false) - I will also remind you that criticism is not defamation. Please stop making accusations against me. I realize that your hatred of the Post and anything it published (based on the derogatory comments of a few users and one incorrect article) is strong, but please stop disgregarding Wikipedia guidelines. If you want to file a complaint against me for including material from properly cited sources, then please go ahead (who knows, I might be wrong). Otherwise, please stop this nonsense.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Jews in Malaysia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Fulford (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) 16:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism and copyright issues as defined by Wikipedia
Hi. I happened to notice the new CCI and see that you have some confusion here. Perhaps I can help clarify.

Taking this edit, I look at one of your sources and see the following text:

The text you added says this:

While you have eliminated some words and altered a few, I have bolded precisely duplicated content to help make the issue more visible.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that information taken from copyrighted sources - except in brief and clearly marked quotations - be rewritten in your own language. This means using different words and frequently different arrangement than your source. As a secondary consideration, Plagiarism requires that all duplicated content - whether the source is free or copyrighted - be explicitly noted as copied. For that reason, content that copies or closely follows any source (unless there is explicit note of copying) is a plagiarism concern under Wikipedia's guidelines. If that content is taken from a non-free source, it also constitutes a problem under our copyright policies.

The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Please be careful if rewriting content removed in the course of the CCI to ensure that it is completely rewritten; a common problem we see is that people submit incomplete rewrites, which can constitute a derivative work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have already made efforts to correct this page. I appreciate that you can deal with me politely, as opposed to Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ, who seems only capable of communicating with insults and evasive rhetoric. I do realize now that some of my editions over the past five years may not have complied with Wikipedia's CCI policy, and I am prepared to make every effort to set this right. I am monitoring the CCI investigation for my edits to address future issues, although considering the backlog (cases from 2009 have still not been completed), it may be a while before this can be concluded.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC))

CCI Notice
Hello, Hyperionsteel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. a13ean (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been editing wiki articles for several years and I have never been accused of CCI violations. However, if I have violated these rules, then I will accept responsibility, and accept the consequences.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

Edit warring
You've been reported for edit warring at Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy and Antisemitism. See WP:AN3. It is possible that you may be sanctioned for your reverts on those articles. To avoid being blocked, you could promise to avoid editing those two articles for a month. If you agree, post a reply at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well. I will agree not to edit either of these articles for on month. As a request (but not a term or condition) I ask that Rosecelse not remove large portions of properly cited material in these articles without discussing it on the talk page first.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC))
 * "Properly cited material" may easily include slurs against living people, material which violates the BLP guideline. BLP violations are always removed immediately, without discussion. It is the editor who wants to include the material who must argue successfully for it. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * all the material I cited came from RS sources. Also, Roseclese initially removed huge portions from several articles (not just material related to BLPs), which is why I took action. However, I have agreed not to edit either of these articles for one month as Ed has suggested above.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC))
 * You have not yet admitted that reliable sources may yield material which violates the WP:BLP guideline; that being a reliable source is not enough. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner. As I have previously stated, the material I cited came from four different Columns/editorials by three different columnists, and published in three different mainstream newspapers (as well as from a Canadian Senate transcript), three from 2008 and another in 2012. I felt (prehaps wrongly) that this met wikipedia requirements for reliability. However, I have agreed not to reinsert this material, even though there is little or no doubt of its accuracy (even the CHRC has admitted the comments in question were made, although they claim they were somehow taken out of context). I will also take more care when using material from editorials/opinion pieces for facts without providing a non-editorial/opinion RS article to support any statements of fact.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC))
 * Message received. Best wishes going forward. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I came off as being overly truculent towards you. This whole incident has left me a in bad mood.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC))

Press TV controversies
Hi Hyperionsteel. I see no indication that you intend to do so, but in the interests of a quiet life for all can I ask you to refrain from re-entering claims about Joachim Martillo being a Holocaust denier into this article. Without very solid sources, it's a violation of WP:BLP. Cheers, Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns about this article and I will not add or reinsert any information or claims about Mr. Martillo unless they are properly sourced. Even so, the user claiming to be Mr. Martillo needs to understand that adding/editing information about oneself is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tetsuya Watari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yamato (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) 11:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Relaible source noticeboard
Discussion is taking place at Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue which may interest you -- (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Habilian Association Deletion
There is a discussion on Articles for deletion/Habilian Association to delete on the basis of non-notability, but there has been some recent deletions of authors such as Koroush Ziabari and Mark Dankof connected to pro-Iranian anti-Israel media sites such as Veterans Today because they are largely propogated on pro-Iran pro-Jihad pro-Palestine conspiracy oriented sites. Pro-Iranian websites and even Iran-sponsored Press TV evidently don't count towards notability. There are notes on the talk page that media sources that are pro-resistance anti-regime have identified the HA as a front for the MOIS and Vevak intelligence agencies. The HA is heavily promoted by Mark Dankof, who has been called an Iranian propogandist, thus there is a direct connection between MOIS, HA, Mark Dankof, and by extension, both Press TV (which is known to be sponsored by the Iranian government) and Veterans Today which claims to be non-aligned, but is used both as a source and an America-based outlet for Iranian propoganda which is created by the Iranian intelligence agencies. Veterans Today also directly reposts from the Mehr News Agency, "a MOIS news outlet,"which is also controlled by the MOIS. These connections may point to a source of the Sandy Hook and other neo-Nazi anti-semitic conspiracy theories as a foreign intelligence agency. Redhanker (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Executive Intelligence Review‎
you may be interested in new additions to Executive Intelligence Review‎. Another source of "experts" for PressTV which blamed the US and Saudi Arabia for the Algeria hostage killings. Redhanker (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Hyperionsteel; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC))

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=555131596 your edit] to Church of Scotland may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Gorgeous George
Thanks for your cooperation. In truth, I think most people would be content enough with reading that "George Galloway made the same anti-imperialistic rant on Twitter and to Russia Today". ;-) --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Galloway was essentially repeating on Russia Today what he had twitted earlier (albeit using different, but still very colourful language). I'm glad we could reach a compromise on this issue.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toronto Street News, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barbara Hall (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) 12:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557774216 your edit] to USS Enterprise (CV-6) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].