User talk:Kriegman

Yoism to VfU

Honestly, I could be wrong. Take it to WP:VfU and make your case. Wikibofh 04:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yoism deletion review

I have requested a deletion review for Yoism. You can find the discussion here. Respectfully. Wikibofh 15:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kriegman,

Attacking those who vote against you won't help. You really know how to burn bridges, don't you? Also, creating your own Wikipedia article and "religion" smacks of vanity and self-promotion. I really don't care to discuss this further.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to on RYoung's talk page. He deleted the response. Kriegman 02:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated in the page, it is my intention to delete User:Wikibofh/Yoism from my user space. If there is information there you would like to preserve, get it while it's hot. Let me know (here is fine) if you've gotten what you want or there is nothing you wish to salvage. Wikibofh 06:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. I already got it. Is it typical to leave no message after a VfU? Did you think it was so clear? Kriegman 06:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibofh's last response

To be honest, I'm not sure on the VfU. The process changed when VfD changed to AfD. I certainly would have expected something to show up in an edit summary showing the close. I'm not sure it was obvious, but since this was more process than content oriented I understand the decision. My recommendation is that yourself and the others (Orion, um...the person who signed up for an account :) continue to edit and contribute here. In a few months, recreate the article as NPOV as possible with the sources you have cited, and indicate this on the talk page. If you are consistent contributors, no one is likely to dismiss as sock/meat puppets. I have to say, even now with Orion having so few edits not related he could be discarded. Don't think of it as "Hyper editors vs. not" but more the case of broad contributors having no risk of being labeled s/m and narrow contributors risking being discarded out of hand. You'll notice I don't include you on this for instance, your contributions are broad enough I don't see them being discounted. My last word of advice is to try to be more succinct. You sometimes write so much that people will discount based on volumn (this is different than a volumn discount :). I probably tend to far to the other side (ie too brief). Now, it's bedtime for Wikibofh. Respectfully. Wikibofh 06:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti quote

Kriegman, the standard of verifiability for quotes benefits both sides of the conflict, as Israel, certainly gets more than its share of "well documented" false quotes, see Ouze Merham. I think Wikipedia is generally better off with the highest standards of verifiability, even if that means letting the Mufti quote go. Just my thoughts. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think unless we can prove it is correctly attributed to the Mufti we should just say he may or may not have said it, but it is still widely believed today, and was then as well so it had a definate impact on the population. Do you agree?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kriegman, I wasn't the one that said consensus had been reached that was Polonius. I find that I usually agree with him and Humus, who both think that quote shouldn't be included. I am starting to agree with their point- That if we can't even find for sure that even the accusation of the quote occurred before the end of the 1948 war, then maybe we should put it somwhere else instead-maybe on the Mufti's article. Do you still disagree?

Oh and on a sidenote have you heard of the Judaism WikiProject, you seemed to edit related articles, you can join and contribute to both.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removal

FYI, it's considered poor form to remove comments from your talk page. Friday (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1948 War

What do you think of Ian's recent addition to the Great uprising section. As always Ian has adaquately sourced all the controversial passages he has included. However, I still feel that much of it is inappropriate, I understand that it is reflecting the arab point of view but still referring to the war as "The Catastrophe" is ridiculous. What do you think about all this?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again reverted Ian Aidens edits to your version. Still, I think you would agree that both versions are heavily biased with extensive use of pro-Arab sources. I am considering to add an NPOV tag, with an adequate explanation on the talk page. I would appreciate it if you review my draft. Feel free to expand and improve the draft. --Heptor 22:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to the 1948 war. Please see what I am against in Talk:Palestinian_exodus Zeq 14:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Settlement Police

Hey Kreigman, Ian Pitchford has pretty much edited to this article into a peice of propaganda. It is a fact that Wingate couldn't really be classified as a "christian Zionist" the way that Ian insists, also he basically makes the group sound like evil men who terrify arabs for no reason. Anyways, I could really use your support edited the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Arab-Israeli War

Kriegman, I have just noticed that you have added disputed claims to this article once more. I am copying my message to Heptor and Zeq below as I suspect there is some confusion about the nature of references. --Ian Pitchford 14:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq;Heptor – I’d like to clarify what is meant by a reference as you both seem to believe you have included them in the article. References to verifiable sources are normally given so that readers who are interested in a particular issue can go directly to the original source to verify that it does in fact make that claim and/or to find out more. The claims you are adding to this article do not have sources. For example, where would a reader go to find out more about the mufti being “one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs”? Where would a reader go (i.e., author, publication and page number) to find the specific claim that the mufti made “radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies” and how would they find and verify the specific quotation given? At the moment there is just a link to two entire books. It’s not clear whether the quotation is in both books and if it is there are no page references to make it easy to find the specific quotation. What source would a reader consult to verify that in “the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy.” Who is making reference to the Holocaust? Who claims that the mufti was “violently anti-Semitic”; who claims that there was a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy? Without sources readers have no reason to accept these claims and no way of checking them. --Ian Pitchford 14:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine Kriegman. Thank you. --Ian Pitchford 15:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reason - a general observation about the world

In this world there are people that you can never reason with. don't try. Zeq 19:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Ian made himself a habit to discuss article on people's talk pages. Firstly, such discussions may become both lengthy and hot-tempered, and I want neither on my talk page. Secondly, any user who reads the article may be interested in the discusson, and he should not have to go to some users talk page. As far as I am concerned, I will give Ian some time to place his comments where they belong, and then remove them from my talk page. --Heptor 20:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HoW do I send you e-mail ? Zeq 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Not sure whether the question is to me or to Kriegman, but to send an e-mail to a user, you go to his user page. Then, in the toolbox below the search field on the left of your screen, you will find a link named E-mail this user. --Heptor 21:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

try again

Disputed edits to 1948 Arab-Israeli War

Kriegman, I am asking you one final time to please desist from adding extremely controversial claims to this article without any supporting references. If you do find suitable references I will support the changes, but if you revert the article again with adhering to Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V I will refer the matter to the Arbitration Committee. --Ian Pitchford 09:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

All the best wishes for 2006! -- Heptor _talk 16:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Thank you for your thoughtful essay. I have mixed feelings about most of the issues you raise. Fred Bauder 14:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brackets I removed

yea sorry, I didn't know the brackets had to do with the quote, I thought they were just like a failed link or something, I'll put them back.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mattar

Also note that Zero and Ian quote Mattar extensively, despite the clear propaganda agenda he is associated with:

He is considered by many "the academic wing" of the PLO and he wrote the Mufti biography that left out the Mufti's Nazi collaboration. I.e., he can hardly be considered an unbiased academic. Why should ties to Zionist/Israeli orgs discredit an author when Mattar's ties to the PLO don't discredit him? Kriegman 03:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are considering writings produced by writers affiliated with nations which are at war. Propaganda is a part of war. Mattar's work, if what you say is true, should be viewed with the same scepticism which would be applied to a production of the Israeli government. It should not be viewed a priori as false, but the facts in it need to be checked. We will from time to time be fooled, but we have a duty to try to puzzle these matters out the best we can. Fred Bauder 03:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing Videos

Hey Kriegmen the link didn't work, my operating system is Windows XP and I use Mozilla Firefox.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded it but it still doesn;t work, It alright though, I can still watch most videos.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that one worked, thank you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intersubjective verifiability article

Hello Kriegman: you make an excellent and very important point more readily grasped by those with a firm handle on the core philosophy issue than among those just familiarizing themselves for the first time. It is indeed only roughly akin to "objective verifiability" in that the expectation is for a set of terms that can be readily shared without constant confusion and wrangling over the meaning of terms for which a standard is required to be meaningful. Since I linked to the IV article from the Pseudoscience article, my concern was creating further confusion upon possible half-understanding or partial understanding (the old "know enough to get into trouble but not enough to get out of it" problem)-- hence the cleanup tag. I agree the tag's debatable and will remove it. Thanks for being in touch...Kenosis 14:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a shot at integrating the material in the IV article for more accessibility in the opening sentence or two of the article as soon as I get a chance; at that point it may be helpful to review it and determine if it is properly explanatory for all the needed slants, including those who only quickly pass through without dwelling in the Sartrean barbershop mirrors or the Cartesian-type solipsism--honestly, as you must know from your practice, folks do get lost in this stuff upon cursory analysis...Kenosis 14:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect request

I responded to your request and made one of my own on my talk page. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 16:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After going over what you've written on my talk page, I believe it's time to revisit the deletion of Yoism; I'm sure you'll want to head over to the deletion review and add your two cents.

By the way, regarding maintaining Yoism as a user subpage... I would personally have no problem with it, and I think many other admins would feel the same. I prefer to userfy well-written articles that find themselves headed for deletion, if for no other reason than to maintain the user's work. Of course, you've done the equivalent by keeping the content on Yoism's website, so it's not necessary — and as you mentioned, it may save you from being accused of... something. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 09:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology Wiki

Hi there Kreigman,

I noticed that you are a clinical psychologist, and thought you might be interested in this project which I am involved in, The Psychology Wiki.

I won't say too much, as I'd like you to judge it for yourself, but you should find that it is different from Wikipedia, because approximately 90% of our contributors so far are psychologists, either professionals like yourself, academics, or students and trainees.

Its hosted by a company called Wikia, which was founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. There are Google Ads on the site, but we dont make money from the project, they're just to pay for the bandwidth, storage and technical support that Wikia give us.

Have a look and see what you think

Mostly Zen 23:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think you would feel at home at our site. Our founder is a Clinical Psychologist practicing in the UK, and one of our other Admins has a great deal of interest in Evolutionary Psychology. Even if you just contributed to our site by adding some APA style references about your work, it would be greatly appreciated. Mostly Zen 23:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Open source religion

I would certainly look at it again, and my opinions are not inflexible, but the article seems to be gone. Did it change names? My opinion is only one opinion anyhow. Mattisse 13:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem much clearer and better referenced. I haven't finished checking the whole article out yet -- but your second footnote doesn't work. Since it is a Boston Globe article, maybe you can get it directly from them. Some articles they leave up forever. Mattisse 13:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me using that link would be O.K. since it seems clearly to be a Boston Globe article and copyrighted as such. Mattisse 13:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't get the Reboot link. What does that link have to do with the article? Also, the Boston Globe article does not have that Yoan quote in it. A working link needs to reference that quote. Mattisse 14:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Boston Globe link: The quotation begins in the fifth paragraph and continues in the sixth. Regarding the Reboot link: That link merely lets the reader know what "Reboot" is. The next sentence is the connection to the OSR article in which it is explained that the origins of Reboot and the attempt to develop Open Source Judaism were coterminous. Kriegman 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people have to know what Reboot is? And the Boston Globe article is a quote from you! The Yoams have to be a real phenomenon over and above you and articles about you. The concept of open source generalizing beyond the computer world is an interesting one, and perhaps genuine as some of your references suggest. Why don't you write an article giving several examples of open source generalizing to other areas. Open source religion could be one example, but you would need other verifiable examples that are independent of you. Mattisse 14:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Boston Globe link

I started to put the link in for you, but I am wondering if the Boston Globe authorized you to use their article on that site. Mattisse (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Globe article

It's one thing to link directly to an article on the newspaper's website. It's another thing if the open source religion site just lifted the html format from the Boston Globe and posted it on their website without the newspaper's permission. Mattisse (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Oaks

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the David Oaks article, but for legal reasons, we CANNOT accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material.

As a consequence, your article will most likely be deleted; in fact, it may already have been deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text - which means allowing other people to modify it - then you have to prove that it's yours (because people can and do lie) by adding, on the external site, the statement that "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I irrevocably release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis [1][2], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=18229828 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me.PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image on Turtles all the way down

I wanted to thank you for updating the image on Turtles all the way down to something that's quite amusing yet not unencyclopedic or otherwise inappropriate. It gave me a laugh, which I appreciate every now and again, so thank you. Rutebega (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kriegman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kriegman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Edgeline Films

Hello, Kriegman. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Edgeline Films, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edgeline Films moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Edgeline Films. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources, it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Garsh (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I knew it was insufficient but I didn't see an option to save it (without publishing it) until it was more finished. Kriegman (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Kriegman. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Harvey Weinstein, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been around Wikipedia long enough that you should know better than to:

edit an article about someone you consider a "good friend" (according to your own writing)
cite an opinion piece (much less a Quilette piece) as if it were factual
cite yourself

And you should definitely know better than to do all three of those things at once with no declaration of the numerous layers of conflict of interest going on. I find it hard to imagine that you don't know why all of those things are problematic, and you did it anyway. Please don't do it again. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]