User talk:Shoessss/Archive Feb 2008

G12 of Holiday in the Sun (film)
Hi, I declined this speedy as the source was a WP mirror. CSB picked it up because of an attempted copy/paste move. CIreland (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks CIreland, I typicaly pick that up and just delete from copyright violations. But as the saying goes:""""Just working toward perfection, just not there yet :-)".  Shoessss |  Chat  18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up on winpdb speedy...
I don't know how automated you have your process, but before you put a speedy deletion template you should at least check the talk page. It would be even better if you checked the article history, somebotty had already done it - of course, anybody can just mindlessly delete templates, so the talk page is more important, but it should at least give you pause. Cheers, Homunq (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did look at the talk page and you had not yet placed a {Hangon} on the piece, at least not at that point looking back at the timelines. However, that is why I keep the articles on my watchlist. Just to help prevent an article from being deleted prematurely when there is an involved editor.  Either way, everything worked out for the best.  Chalk up one for the Good Guys.  Shoessss |  Chat  16:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Maurizio Giuliano
Hi Shoessss. I notice you have made some contributions to the article on Maurizio Giuliano, now located at User:CCorward/Maurizio Giuliano. I am trying to get people to edit as appropriate, and then I can ask an admin to move it back to userspace. If interested in editing the article or supporting its move back to userspace, please feel welcome to do so. Cheers, --CCorward (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA
Hello, I recently saw that you posted a comment on my RFA, saying that I have mostly contributed in the last 3-4 months. As the edit count |here shows, I have been contributing actively for the past 6 months. Although I have been contributing more these past four months, I beg to differ that the 1450 edits in the first two months are not a small amount. Cheers, Icestorm815  •  Talk  16:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Icestorm815  •  Talk  please do not take my remark in a disparaging way!  It certainly was not meant in that fashion.  Regarding your edits, I just pointed out that a vast majority were done in just the last three to four months.  For me, personally to support your Rfa, I would like to see more contributions in the editing aspect rather than just vandal patrol.  In addition, to be honest, that will come in time, if you choose to continue to edit here at Wikipedia.  Regarding your Rfa, if it is not successful this time around, please reapply in 6 months or so.  If you continue to support Wikipedia in the same dedicated manner you have shown over the last three to four months you will have an additional Support opinion, Mine, to count on.  Good Luck to you and happy editing. Shoessss |  Chat  16:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PeaceCorpsWiki
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article PeaceCorpsWiki, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of PeaceCorpsWiki. WLU (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello WLU, sorry to say, the only involvement I have had with this article was removing the copyright violation tag. In doing a quick search of the organization, it does seem to be involved with the Peace Corps.  Personally, I would delete this piece and redirect to the Peace Corps article and place the web site as an external link.  Hope this helps. Shoessss |  Chat  13:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, was CSD A7-ed anyway. I figure the prod warning is due to all editors when the page has had less than 3 : ) WLU (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Cohan Modal Cluster Haplotype
Dear Editor,

I appreciate your help, by solving the issues regarding whenever the article shold stay or be deleted it;

I also accept the other editor´s decision too.

“I agreed - merge both articles and let the individuals with the knowledge to discuss this information work – it – out rather than a delete”

Now, Mr. JHeald is still deleting the infos there were merged from The Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype. (and he did removed previously informations that I added to the article too).

Please help me make him accept your decisions, and please make sure that he cannot delete the informations that were merged again.

Thank you very much

Best Regards,

Chris Cohen President Brazilian Association of Cohanim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscohen (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Chriscohen I have asked a more seasoned and knowledgeable administrators in this field, not an editor, to look at both articles and give their advice. I am not sure this will resolve the issue.  However, it may lead to a more diplomatic approach to the situation.  Good Luck. Shoessss |  Chat  17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.


 * Your accusations are getting a little out of order. -- neon white user page talk 16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have found your tome and criticism to myself and other editors to be at best condescending at worst abusive. Please do not treat me and other editors as neophytes. The over-handed changes you are making should at a minimum, discussed on the talk page before reverting. It is one individual to quote policy, it is a far better individual who understands policy. Shoessss |  Chat  17:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous i have edited in nothing but a civil manner. I have made no personal attacks nor used any offensive or abusive words. On the other hand you have not, at any stage, assumed good faith and made several personal attacks agaisnt me. You have read things into posts that simply are not there and assumed bad faith from the start. Any editor is free to remove original research from an article to improve it. The articles obvioiusly needs work and it is good practice to start by asserting it's notability. It is not vandalism and your accusations are out of order. I suggest you brush up on your civility and conduct. -- neon white user page talk 17:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Report me than! I will stand for a review by my peers. Shoessss |  Chat  17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Only persistant offenders are reported. I am simply reminding you to assume good faith. I'm sure you are here to improve the encyclopedia just as i am and the majority of other editors are. -- neon white user page talk 22:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Neon white. Now that is extremely admirable of you to say !   Just as you indicated,  a majority of editors here at Wikipedia participate to expand knowledge, not restrict it. Let us call our disagreement a difference of opinion with two passionate editors on different sides of the fence, arguing what we believe is right. However, looking at the same goal.  With that matter put to bed, if I ever need a passionate advocate, you are now in my top ten.  I hope that you will view the same with me.  Happy Editing. Shoessss |  Chat  00:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Cohen dispute
I don't know much about the editing protocols at Wikipedia, but I'm very concerned about the content of the material that Chris Cohen has been posting. I'm trying to learn a way of resolving this by the proper channels. I posted several comments on the Talk page for Y-chromosomal Aaron.

I have come in as a third party, to confirm that James Heald's actions have been reasonable and his arguments correct, according to the current state of scientific knowledge. Chris Cohen's comments reflect a very serious lack of understanding of the matter under discussion. I have outlined some of my qualifications for giving an informed opinion in my posting: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Y-chromosomal_Aaron

Chris is now adding material to the Y-chromosomal Aaron page, which is very much counter to fact, not to mention the poor English. I will edit out the part which is inaccurate. I do not want innocent people to be led astray by this incorrect, misleading stuff he is posting. I hope we will be able to get a few others to come on to Wikipedia and confirm what James and I are saying. I don't think anyone in the field, including the scientists that Chris is citing, would agree with what he is posting. Bonnie Iris-J2 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Will someone experience please help with this -- Chris is posting more and more of this on the original Y chromosomal Aaron page, which is honestly, crazy stuff which attempts to subvert all the careful work that has been done on this page. We are going back and forth, inserting and deleting it. How can this be stopped? -- Bonnie Iris-J2 (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Iris-J2 I have asked a more seasoned and knowledgeable administrators in this field, not an editor, to look at both articles and give their advice.  I am not sure this will resolve the issue.  However, it may lead to a more diplomatic approach to the situation.  Good Luck. Shoessss |  Chat  17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Cohen Modal Haplogroup
Hi,

Please help me with this discussion. They are still deleting the information. Others Wikipedia´editor choice is against their personal opinions.

How can we stop them deleting the infos?

Best Regards, Chris Cohen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscohen (talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris, if you note above, my reply concerning this article. I have asked an WP:Administrator to review – comment and help. To be honest, the material you are covering, I have no knowledge of. My contributions at best would be a peacemaker not a contributor. The administrator I have asked to help is Tone who I have always found to be fair – honest and extremely diplomatic in handling situations similar to this, along with knowledge of this subject matter. Shoessss | Chat  18:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Shoessss. I look forward to hearing from Tone, I hope he or she can help. I'm trying to read up on Wikipedia policies. What Chris is doing fits the description of Tendentious Editing: Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of '''repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors. A single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behaviour is generally characterised as POV pushing''' and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions. I don't think Chris understands that he is not supposed to be able to repeatedly insert material that he alone believes is worthwhile, that others are strongly protesting as inaccurate and misleading. Bonnie Iris-J2 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype
Hi, thanks for your help.

The source from all the information that was added no the article is from:

THE DNA & TRADITIONAL - A The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews book/ Devora Publishing from Jerusalem and New York (2005)Author: Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman - Director of The Center of Kohanim located in the Old City of Jerusalem. The author met with the researches, and help collect samples for the studies. Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman is the principal speaker for the next Internacinal Jewish Genealogical Society Convention, held in Jerusalem every year, since 2002. Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman is the director of the Cohen-Levi Organization. http://www.cohen-levi.org

and

Origins of Old Testaments Priests - Nature, Volume 394 -9 de July 1998. Authors: Karl Skorecki from Bruce Rapparport Faculty of Medicine and Research Institute, Technion, Haifa 31096, Israel;

Mark G. Thomas / The Centre for Genetic Anthropology, Departament of Biology and Anthropology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK;

Haim Ben-Amit/Rambam Medical Centre, Haifa 31096, Israel; Turdor Parfitt / University of London, London WC1H OXC, UK;

Neil Brandman and David. B. Goldstein/ University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_Modal_Cluster_Haplotype" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscohen (talk • contribs) 18:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

These two articles are very old by the standards of genetic research, and they are very out of date. It's too bad that the authors have not chosen to update them, despite many pleas that they do so. The scientific understanding of Y-DNA's application to the study of human population groups' history has gone through tremendous changes since 1998. That is why we are trying to get Chris to see that he needs to learn more and not try to turn back the clock to an outmoded explanation of the Cohen question.

Bonnie Iris-J2 (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, when I referred to "two articles" I meant the original Skorecki article from Nature, v. 385, 1997, and the one by Thomas et al in Nature, v. 394, 1998. The book by Rabbi Kleiman is one I have neither seen myself nor read any mention of in forums on this topic. He may be fine as a religious scholar, and an active genealogist, but his book is not a scientific source.

Bonnie Iris-J2 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.


 * Your accusations are getting a little out of order. -- neon white user page talk 16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have found your tome and criticism to myself and other editors to be at best condescending at worst abusive. Please do not treat me and other editors as neophytes. The over-handed changes you are making should at a minimum, discussed on the talk page before reverting. It is one individual to quote policy, it is a far better individual who understands policy. Shoessss |  Chat  17:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous i have edited in nothing but a civil manner. I have made no personal attacks nor used any offensive or abusive words. On the other hand you have not, at any stage, assumed good faith and made several personal attacks agaisnt me. You have read things into posts that simply are not there and assumed bad faith from the start. Any editor is free to remove original research from an article to improve it. The articles obvioiusly needs work and it is good practice to start by asserting it's notability. It is not vandalism and your accusations are out of order. I suggest you brush up on your civility and conduct. -- neon white user page talk 17:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Report me than! I will stand for a review by my peers. Shoessss |  Chat  17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Only persistant offenders are reported. I am simply reminding you to assume good faith. I'm sure you are here to improve the encyclopedia just as i am and the majority of other editors are. -- neon white user page talk 22:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Neon white. Now that is extremely admirable of you to say !   Just as you indicated,  a majority of editors here at Wikipedia participate to expand knowledge, not restrict it. Let us call our disagreement a difference of opinion with two passionate editors on different sides of the fence, arguing what we believe is right. However, looking at the same goal.  With that matter put to bed, if I ever need a passionate advocate, you are now in my top ten.  I hope that you will view the same with me.  Happy Editing. Shoessss |  Chat  00:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR complaint filed against User:Chriscohen
fyi: I've filed a complaint at WP:AN/3RR. He reverted you within 2 hours. Jheald (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)