User talk:Arniep/Archive1 - Wikipedia

Well, I think probably the issue of categorization of English dynasties at the very least needs to be reopened again on the categories page. I've put the English kings in a more specific subclass Plantagenets so they at least don't get confused with the other houses of Anjou. I agree that it's not Wikipedia's job to "standardize" names where there is no standard, nor to impose continental notions of what a house consists of on British monarchs. - Nunh-huh 02:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think that, because the photograph is the subject of an article that discusses the attributes of the photograph, {{art}} makes sense here. I think the distinction can be drawn where the photograph itself is sufficiently notable that it's worth talking about it separately from the photograph's subject. JYolkowski // talk 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think we can determine the difference by the use. If a photograph is being used in a context where it is being treated as a work of art, then we can consider it a work of {{art}}. If not, then not. If someone incorrectly tags a photo as {{art}}, then we can look at the article it's included in and determine whether it really is art. If it isn't then we can tag it as {{fairusedisputed}} or as an imagevio or whatever. JYolkowski // talk 16:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Contrib merges are no longer being done. However, I've taken the liberty of sending your password to your email account. This will only work if you provided the email upon sign-up, however. Good luck. Superm401 | Talk 15:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note on Bentham. Looks like User:susurrus has now reverted the changes, although as you mention, asking for permission might have been a better route. I am unsure what UCL's policy on Wikipedia is, although I'm 'close' to the university. --stochata 06:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

You wrote: Hi! you left a note on User talk:Polon's page on the 7th, they continued to upload photos with no source and license Special:Contributions&target=Polon and readd photos to pages when I have labelled them copyvios could you give them a admin warning or something? Thanks Arniep 21:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I will check it out and leave a proper message, or take stronger action if it seems justified. DES ^(talk) 21:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sir, you added:

"she was to rise to greater things"

This is POV. To some the stage may be greater than the screen.

Also, if I am going to do a lot of edits on an article, I check the talk page. If you had looked at the talk page for Ms. Bacall, you would have noticed a nice discussion about Bogart calling her "Baby".

WikiDon 19:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Me again. Hate to be a pest, but....you said:

"Bogart never used her real name..."

The defense takes exception to the word "never." That is a very strong word, where did you obtain that from?

WikiDon

Hey there. Thanks for your comments about the photos I've been posting. (Like Bruce Cabot). These photos are promotional photos given to the press when they were first released in the 1940's, so wouldn't that mean that they fall under public domain? The whole point of the photos, released by motion picture companies, were for them to be used in media for publicity for their films or music. So are we not using them correctly?

sorry. no signature Steve-O 18:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll stick with screenshots from my movie collection. I thought the publicity shots from 60 years ago would be OK, but it seems like it's not worth the effort. Thanks for the tips, however. Steve-O 23:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

In which case, please accept my apologies - I've recently had to deal with a couple of hoaxers and am on a bit of a hair-trigger! Vizjim 23:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It is not the category that is odd so much as who is in it. Roy Keane almost certainly does not have a British passport and so it is pretty strange to think of him as British. Without reading Cherie Blair's bio I certainly wouldn't think of her as Irish, she's from Liverpool and a Catholic but AFAIK that's as far as it goes. If a grandfather or greatgrandfather from Ireland makes you an Irish Briton then at least 20% of Britons are Irish British. I think it should be restricted to those who had a parent from Ireland or those for whom their Irish heritage was actually important e.g. Spike Milligan.GordyB 10:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Well, maybe I exaggerated, but my point was similar to GordyB's above, about the numbers of British people with Irish ancestors. The categories for Irish-Americans, German-Americans, etc are including people on the basis of great grandparents; if we did the same for the British category we would be talking about hundreds or maybe even thousands of people. JW 11:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Arnie. I haven't voted yet (I'm still not sure where I stand on the issue), but I pointed out the CfD discussion on the Irish Wikipedians' notice board, which should get a few people involved. RMoloney 02:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've seen your comment on my talk page re: renaming the category to British Irish. I don't think that really helps address the various issues around such a category. I note also you've now suggested Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain. I think that is less bad - it uses terms that are current in the language - but still inherently problematic as a category for putting individual people into. At what point do individual people stop being part of a diaspora and become part of the country where their ancestors moved to?

I note that a number of pages which refer to Irish people in Britain appear to be pushing an agenda - I am not of course suggesting that you are doing so! - and this is something that should be avoided. (For example Irish community in Britain lists numerous people who allegedly belong to the Irish community. Some of them are Irish citizens who live in the UK. Fair enough. Others are prominent people who few would think of as Irish (or even "Irishish"). Similarly the page reports on the 2001 census which put the percentage of people declaring themselves to be of Irish ethnicity in England and Wales as being 1.2%. It then goes on to make a POV case that this figure is "ridiculously low"). My concern with this category is that it will lend itself to such people pushing agendas - both pro- and anti-Irish - without being especially enlightening to the WP user. Valiantis 15:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've changed my vote to support your helpful proposal to rename to Category:Britons of Irish descent. I think that's a good compromise and avoids most of the POV issues. Better to try and get consensus on a 'middle ground' rename than to have no consensus as no consensus means the cat will remain under the existing name! Valiantis 22:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this category but I think evidence should be provided for Irish ancestry, particularly if "1 Irish grandparent" is the criteria for membership. As far as I am aware Martine McCutcheon has a Scottish step-father (from whom she gets her Scottish surname) and an English mother. Now either of them could be of Irish descent, as could her real father, but including her requires evidence of this, surely.

Re: your newest proposal to rename to Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain. Sorry, but I'm unhappy backing that for the reasons I stated above. I would fit into that category in the way it seems to be being defined (in so far as it is being defined at all) and yet I do not see myself as part of any diaspora. I note that a user below has queried your adding of Jack McConnell to the current cat and I see the "Irish diaspora" wording leading to almost as many debates (and edit wars) as the current name. This is not near enough to the middle ground to work for me. I'm therefore abstaining from any further comments on this issue in CFD unless anyone writes anything particularly new there, so I won't actively oppose your new proposal. Valiantis 19:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

PS - You may want to update the header in CFD to show your current rename proposal so that it's clear to latecomers what rename they're voting on. I believe this is the standard practice. CFD currently shows the proposed rename as Category:Britons of Irish descent. Valiantis 19:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

hello. i read through the debate on the cat's renaming/deletion. the reason i voted to keep Category:Scottish-Americans is mostly because there exists cats for so-called Irish Americans and African Americans, cats which i personally would like to see gone but that exist for culturally (and even psychological) reasons that see a lot of people wanting them retained. since i know they cannot be gotten rid of, i d like to see them at least balanced in a sense by having similar cats for all ethnic backgrounds. however, my personal bias is that they should not exist for "tagging" ethnicity (as goes on), but for indicating first generation immigrants who have an original cultural set of values that can be identified and linked in wikipedia to that country/region. many users however use the cats for second, third, or any generation of person with ethnicity. as for the cat in question, i too have a problem labelling Bono, Roy Keane, and others included on the list as Irish-British notwithstanding an explanation in the head of the cat of what is to be meant by it. i would propose a cat for first generation Irish immigrants who settle in Great Britain and call it Category:Irish-British people and separate lists, one for Irish who have contributed to British culture and life, and one for wiki articles on Britons with Irish ancestry and have the lists linked to the cat. however since this is not really the support you were looking for, i withhold voting. regards -Mayumashu 03:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Got your note, Arniep, and put in my $0.02 -- with best regards David Hoag 06:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, just expressing my opinion here, and in no mood to break the Three Revert rule, I think having an Irish grandfather is a bit of a tenuous link to add him to that category - the existance of which appears to be under debate. Erath 18:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi the category is for people of near Irish descent in Great Britain. Arniep 19:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

What I'm saying is, in line with comments above might I add - is that the defintion of an Irish Briton should not be strung so wide - I second User:GordyB's comments above about there being a notable link or a close family one. Having an Irish grandparent is of no significance to McConnell. Erath 19:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Brian, I am not sure how you know that it is of no significance to him unless you have actually asked him. In fact he recently campaigned against sectarianism which may well have been influenced by his own Irish heritage [1]. Arniep 19:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess I don't know. But, his stance on sectarianism is as likely to be as a result of the scale of the problem in Glasgow as to any Irish descent. I for one, living in Scotland and following politics, have never heard of McConnell's Irish descent being brought up at any time - I reiterate that he probably doesn't belong in the category. I think we need a third party to settle this one though. Erath 21:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think an Irish-Scots category should refer to people with strong Irish, often Irish-Catholic, ancestry. For instance those who probably identify themselves more with Ireland than Scotland (Gillespie, O'Brien, James Connolly etc may well belong in this category). I don't believe McConnell (or Lorraine Kelly) do to be honest. If it simply means someone who has an Irish ancestor; or in the case of Lorraine Kelly simply an Irish sounding name,....well, who in Scotland does not? He may well be influenced by his Irish grandparent if indeed he has one, or his ancestry may well be of significance to him. But surely wikipedia requires evidence for rather than no evidence against....... You may as well call Gerry Adams a British-Irishman owing to his English ancestry and British surname. Anyway McConnell's wife is a well known local Catholic politician and I suspect it was this that influenced his tepid fight against religious bigotry but again I have no evidence for that (note: he has done not a thing to remove sectarianism from Scottish society). 130.159.254.2 11:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

hu:User:Nikita is a brand new editor in the hungarian wiki, she is a movie fan. By her story she was on Cannes Festival, and take hundred of pictures. She have the bigger versions, I going to tell, for justify herself she can upload one original sized one. Otherwise it looks the actors are missing theme... On her discuss page i gave instructions. --Aranymalinko 14:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Nikita start upload some pictures, and I try moderate her as fast as possible. For Nikita now clear the open publicating features, our task to find the best text about it. A hungarian admin, Serinde joint to clean up the licenses, so the situation going to normal. Not this is my main editing theme, but me was online at that time... --hu:Rodrigo 20:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for putting it on Ifd as well. It's sad that we have to delete such images. --Bash 21:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is written primarily for readers, not for potential future editors. The Commons link clearly says "has more media related to ..". This is a lie. Wikimedia Commons does not have more media than the article itself. Therefore the link should not exist. As a compromise, I am going to comment out these links so they are only visible to editors.--Eloquence* 11:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

To state that Commons has more media when it does not is an error in fact. Errors in fact are unacceptable in an encyclopedia. If you wish to advertise Commons, do it in a factually correct manner - change the text in Template:Commons.--Eloquence* 11:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

What about a category for all Irish people in the UK, and a subcategory for the Irish people on Great Britain? (Probably Northern Ireland people would be another subcategory.) — Instantnood 17:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

For navigation purpose, category:Northern Ireland people already fits as a subcategory to the category I suggested for all Irish people in the UK, until there's a need for a seperate category for Irish people in Northern Ireland. (are Irish people in Northern Ireland "diaspora", by the way?) — Instantnood 08:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Whether the people there may agree with the status quo or not is not quite relevant here, since as an encyclopædia we have to acknowledge facts. Sectarianmism is not desirable, but presenting some facts for encyclopædia purpose is far from being sectarian. — Instantnood 13:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Alright. Rename the category first to reflect that it's for the Irish diaspora and the people of Irish descent in Great Britain. — Instantnood 14:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

One category is already fine, I suppose. — Instantnood 14:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'll change my comment on Cfd accordingly. — Instantnood 14:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned, don't think there's a need to separate them at the time being. — Instantnood 08:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. You left a note on my talk page but the link you made there didn't seem to direct me to anywhere relevant. Or am I missing something? If there is still discussion of this taking place, where is it happening? Palmiro | Talk 20:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The anon to whom you refer is deliberately being a pain in the arse. The best policy is to play it by ear, whichever seems the more natural, and also bearing in mind the historical context of that person related to the history of the Union. e.g. Martin Johnson is English because he played for England whereas Steve Redgrave is British because he rowed for Great Britain.

The categorisation system is supposed to be independent of the text, though I agree that some of the overcategorisation is silly, but I can't be arsed to try to fix it. Dunc|☺ 19:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

If he feels there's a problem with the image, then he should act on that feeling, not use it as an excuse to keep problematic images. If he does so, he'll quickly find out that the creator of that image has released it under the GFDL, so that's fine. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 00:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've already blocked that user because of their username, but I'll keep an eye out for any similar vandalism. tregoweth 04:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've done it. (Adrien Brody)

Nyikita 16:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. I didn't know if you knew. Also, in the vote for deletion page, you said "Fair use images cannot be used just for identification." Where can I find that as a rule? Also, the picture of her from King Arthur you keep putting up there, as well as the Domino screenshot are both fair use, how do they not meet your delete standard? AriGold 19:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Is it your intention, then, to meander through every name in this so-called encyclopedia, and remove nicknames, such as Ernest "Ernie" Banks? (Which, by the way, if you change, you will start an edit war). Wahkeenah 17:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

AHA! I see what you're getting at now. And I think you're right, that she goes by "Pamela" more than "Pam"; as opposed to Jennifer "Jenny" McCarthy, which I see has single quotes around 'Jenny', which is likely a style violation. Cheerio. :) Wahkeenah 19:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

OK, so you would follow a standard like this, if I understand correctly:

• Pamela Denise Anderson - known as Pamela, sometimes as Pam
• Ernest Banks - known as Ernie
• Lewis "Scotter" Libby
• George Herman "Babe" Ruth

What does the wiki style manual have to say about this, if anything? Wahkeenah 02:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I didn't touch the birthdate in the article. All I did was fix the link for French so it didn't go to the disambiguation page. Perhaps you messaged (is that the right word?) me by mistake?--Shanel 20:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Arnie. Yeah, I appreciate that there are several actors in that category who might not really belong, but I think that happens with almost every category, and the solution is to remove the particular actor from the category. I don't think it's an argument for category deletion in itself. Also, I will mention that, of all ethnic identities, the question of who is a Jew? is probably the thorniest. For instance, because Jewishness traditionally comes via matrilineal descent, one could legitimately claim to be a Jew with only 1 of one's 16 great-great-grandparents being of the Jewish faith RMoloney (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

• P.S. The 'R' in my name stands for 'Richard', not 'Ryan', but don't sweat it, I don't mind at all.
• P.P.S. An anon apparently vandalised your userpage, so I took the liberty of reverting it.

Oh Ryan Moloney, of course! The world's only famous Moloney, I should have thought of that. I actually have a friend whose brother lived with Ryan for a while when he was living in Oz. But anyway. As I say, Jewish identity is, almost by definition, a thorny topic. See, for example Template talk:Jew for pitfalls encountered when trying to separate Jewish ethnicity from Jewish religion. As well, some less traditional elements in modern Judaism do consider those with Jewish fathers, gentile mothers as Jewish. While I still favour a wholesale "keep" of the category, with problematic cases dealt with on a case by case basis, if you have a renaming proposal, I would urge you to mull the wording very carefully indeed. RMoloney (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

But surely you encounter the same can of worms with general ethnicity categories? If the xxx-American actors category is gone, then this actor will be in 4 different xxx-Americans categories. I do share your concerns about the likes of Michael Douglas being included, but I can't think of a way to formulate the Jewish Americans category so as to exclude him. You see, with self-identification, you've got the problem of anti-Semitic Jews like Bobby Fischer. With religious observance, you've got atheist Jews like Steven Weinberg. (And it's my opinion that both of the aforementioned should be in the category.) If you were to strictly apply matrilineal descent, that would be considered POV as it would not be agreed to by Reform Judaism. RMoloney (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think we need to, and should, forget about any semblance of "Jewish religious law" or "Jewish mother law" or whatever. That would be taking a POV towards a certain ethnicity, since we certainly don't use "Irish mother law" or "Armenian mother law" with those groups. I'm reponsible for adding a majority of ethnic labels towards a large number of actors, I use the 1/4 law - if an actor has a grandparent "fully" of one ethnicity, the label can be applied there (and as such I've taken actors out of labels they were already in but had insufficient ancestry for the label; i.e. taking 1/8th Swedish Julia Roberts out of Swedish-Americans). We need to look at this from the same point-of-view that we would use for any other ethnicity. If no one complained about Roberts being listed as "Swedish-American" despite very distant Swedish heritage, then I'm not sure why all this attention is paid specifically to "Jewish Americans" - people like Michael Douglas who has one Jewish parent! Imagine if Julia Roberts' father was "full-on" Swedish - not a person in the world would even consider taking her out of Swedish Americans. Usually the info on "how Jewish" the person is, is already in the entry, so let the viewers make up their own minds based on their own perceptions. Right now I don't believe there are actors in the "Jewish American actors" category who are less than 1/4 Jewish (but I am pretty there are actors in other categories who are less than 1/4 whichever ethnicity). Before taking anyone out - be sure to read through the entry or do some research on the person. As for "Jewish American actors" Vs. "Jewish Americans" - I don't mind necessarily if the two are merged. Vulturell 07:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that makes sense. I'll agree with all of that. 83.70.161.31 13:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (a.k.a. RMoloney (talk) when he doesn't realise he's logged out.)Reply

Ooops. I thought that the image should have gone on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images instead of ifd. I meant to move it over there but obviously forgot about. Reviewing the criteria for deletion on both pages, the image is rightfully on ifd and I have deleted it. Thanks.

Father, forgive me for I have sinned. I will confess, I really didn't want to delete the image cause I am a big Zeta-Jones fan and it is a nice, nice (i.e. hot) image of her. I downloaded a private copy for my personal pleasure before deleting it. --Nv8200p (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is your first and last warning. The next time you put a vandalism pastel box on a page, you will be annoying people like me with heart conditions on Wikipedia.

D'you have any idea what your putting that thing on my page did for my heart?!

I've gotta thank you--I nearly made it to the Pearly Gates 'cause of your comment!

I know, it was a youthful (or middleage, or senile; I'm not giving my age out) indiscretion! You don't need to play silly buggers with templates over it!

Good day, sir! WAS 03:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC).Reply

I'd say people with little Jewish ancestry, and those who don't identified themselves as such are miscategorised. But then ancestries of famous people are of encyclopædic interests. — Instantnood 15:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, people with "little" (i.e. less than 1/4th) of Jewish ancestry are not listed. I guess it's certainly possible that 1/4 is considered little by some people as well, but I think it's a reasonable amount, especially since people like Paris Hilton keep getting "Norwegian-Americans" added to them, despite being only 1/16th Norwegian (in Hilton's case; I removed the tag but it got re-added; of course I removed it again).Vulturell 18:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

First, I must say I'm at a loss as to where previously I've supported your comments. I do vote a lot at AfD etc. but I don't remember this. I did help vote down "list of Jewish High school principals" and "list of Jewish engineers"--non-encyclopedic and a little creepy to my mind. But bonafide actors? I'd say keep the category in-itself. I'm broadly a "self-identifier" is indentifier type. That is, if X comedian, actress, author etc. identifies as Jewish, well, we'll put them in the appropriate "American Jewish..." category. Marskell 22:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I cast a vote here as well...just so you know, I have a somewhat nuanced view of this type of category: I'm in favour of them if the combination of that particular ethnic (or sexual) minority group with that particular occupation constitutes a unique cultural context in its own right. I'm in favour, for example, of an African American musicians grouping, because African American music is a unique, specific and identifiable cultural context with an encyclopedic history in its own right. I don't think they should exist for any imaginable combination of personal characteristic and occupation (and accordingly voted to delete the particular category under discussion), but they should exist in cases where they clearly group members of a distinct cultural phenomenon with an identifiably unique and encyclopedic cultural context of its own. Bearcat 03:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Re: Category:Jewish film directors and Category:Jewish classical musicians, what I'd want to know is whether you could make a case that being a Jewish film director or a Jewish classical musician constitutes a specific cultural context that's in some way distinct from being a non-Jewish film director or a non-Jewish classical musician. Those two sound to me like grey areas, where it might be possible to make such a case, but that case isn't inherently obvious to me the way it is for Category:African American musicians. Bearcat 20:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have photos with Naomi Watts, Laura Harring and Justin Theroux, but they're not scanned. Later. Be patience :-)

Nyikita 20:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Looks fine now. I wasn't so much upset by Ruth Kelly as I don't really understand the passions involved but it did seem an obvious anomaly in what is obviously a very touchy subject for some. Normally where a person is born is considered their country, though that is not always the case or I would be half Egyptian (RAF Grandfather). Anyway, have a nice w/end SqueakBox 19:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

You wrote me: "Hi I am not against saying De Niro is not italian american but the header of articles is a place to put nationality. His nationality is not italian american. So you have to say he is american first then you can say he is italian american with explanation. Arniep 14:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)"

Let's explain something. I think the header of articles is a place to put etnical origins about a person and not ONLY his/her nationality. In your way nobody can be consider an Irish Amercian, a Polish American, ecc; because they all are American born. That's so silly! Everybody knows Italian American as a proper nationality doesn't exist. Somebody could be American and Italian, with two nationalities but it doesn't make him an Italian American. Italian American is about the heritage as I wrote you some times ago. That's the so-called Ethnography. An example: Ronaldo (the football player) recently joined Spanish nationality, that dosen't mean he's Spanish, he's still Brasilian with two nationality. Anyway De Niro was proposed Italian nationality to underline his Italian origin. All De Niro's serious biographies report him as an Italian American actor. Maybe you're the only who can't stand it. I don't know what to think... I think Wikipedia must be a free encilcopedia which reports the most complete and correct imformation about the subjects. That's all.

Category:Roman Catholics: "before adding an article to this category or subcategory, please consider whether the person's religious beliefs or participation in the Catholic Church are significant to the reasons why that person is notable.". I was reverting a user who was going around adding this category to biography pages of many people who did not meet these criteria (and some of whom aren't even Catholic!). If Duncan Smith's Catholicism is sufficiently notable, feel free to add it back in and I will not revert. Demiurge 16:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I ask you, as I said, not to change people's heritage anymore. You're wrong and I try to explain you. What I changed is riported in offical biography about American actors' descent. Thank you

Oh my Gosh! I really don't understand what's the problem here! Worldwide De Niro and other are considered and reported as Italian American in their Biography. I know he's an American born but he's Italian American. I don't know how to make you understand. In your way, third time I say it, NOBODY can be consider Italian American because they're American born. That's silly and untrue!

I just stumbled on to this - and this is stupid. Maybe you would have some sort of argument if DeNiro was 100% Italian, but he is only 1/4. He has about as much right getting called a German-American actor (maternal grandfather was German-American) as an Italian one. He shares both ethnicities equally.Vulturell 06:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, I said it before. I'm telling you that biographies report it. To me you can clearly write De Niro is half Italian and half German, no problem. Just write it! I don't understand why can be written in the header. The nationality is given by the place where he was born and that's implied in the birth date with place. Anyway, what I said is that De Niro is widely consider an Italian American and could be more clear and true if it'll be riported. I mean, Maybe not everybody likes truth... Ah, and the same for Madonna or Quentin Tarantino or Joe Pesci or Al Pacino, and so on. I'm try to make order in the Wikipedia's Italian American section, this is why I'm trying to explain you my reasons. I would do the same for Irish American, Polish American, ecc. Using only the American nationality Wikipedia's pages as Italian American, Irish American couldn't exist. I hope someone understand. I'm only trying to do my best. Thx

I understand you don't want to try even a compromise. I'm trying to improve the Wikipedia's quality. Anyway, we problem will be risolved soon.--Doctor01 12:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I don't have the Madonna (entertainer) article on my watchlist, so I wouldn't have known otherwise :). Extraordinary Machine 20:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

In re: your question at my Talk page, I'd say that we aren't really put in the position of needing to assume anything, because the Commons policies are fairly clear about what needs to be in the description of a public domain image. Since that information isn't there, it has incomplete licensing, and the uploader (whose talk page I used to leave a message for) now has a very generous amount of time to provide the additional information. If you're just curious about my personal opinion about applying WP:AGF, I'd say that I think we should "assume" that the uploader had no intention of infringing on copyright, and if it so happens that they are, we can further assume that they are just unclear about what "public domain" means, not that they are trying to expose Wikimedia to legal problems out of maliciousness. Jkelly 22:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Your translation was pretty good. "... ent—" was obviously cut by the edit summary length, leaving us without much in the way of a verb. But the meaning is clear; it is "Copyrighted, can be used for any purpose." I'd suggest that you add this further information to the image description at Commons. We do still need the name of the photographer for complete licensing information. Jkelly 23:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I suspect two different images are being confused. See my edit at Talk:Madonna (entertainer). Jkelly 00:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments. I'm just learning how this all works, and agree that it can certainly be addictive.

I'll check it out and maybe add something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivaverdi (talk • contribs) 01:26, 16 November 2005

You've been a regular contributor at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, as well as doing good, not-always-fun work around Wikipedia on the issue, but I notice that you haven't signed up as a member of the project. I'd like to encourage you to consider doing so. Jkelly 02:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've put a comment on. There seems to be a sudden flood of "delete lists of Jews" mania, even re-opening discussions on the List of Jews itself.
RachelBrown 09:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is really quite outrageous. How do you complain about an administrator? - RachelBrown 17:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is the Wikipedian publics decision to delete this lists; complaining to an administrator just shows your undeniable bias. There are many lists being deleted, mainly because Wikipedia is starting to get itself together, search for copyrighted images, clean up redundancy and the like. Because the Jewish lists happen to be the ones that are the most far-reaching -- I haven't seen a single list of another religion/ethnicity who won International Medals etc -- they also appear to be the ones most frequently being voted for deletion Antidote 18:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I came off "rude," I just don't understand why there's such hype over this. Antidote 18:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

In response to your comment on my talk page, first off I treat every list on a case-by-case basis. Second, if someone were to nominate African American lists, I would actually give consideration to voting to delete, depending on the subject matter of the particular list. IMO all these lists should be treated as categories. 23skidoo 18:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

As explained in Jew, the term encompasses both an ethnicity and people who practice Judaism. I asked of User:Kappa, if there were a List of Jewish entertainers, would Sammy Davis, Jr. be included on the list? If the answer is yes, then the list is based on religion and is of no use because the religion has nothing to do with their success as entertainers (just as there is no List of Catholic entertainers). A compromise might be "List of ethnic Jewish foobarians" excluding those who are converts and then that falls within the precedent of having lists by ethnicity. Regards, howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

My voting pattern is not influenced by the way you define Jewish. Unless historic events dictate otherwise, a person's occupation rarely bears relevance to their religious beliefs, ethnic heritage, shoe size, or favorite film. By all means I'll vote for a list of Jewish scientists who fled Germany during the Nazi era. By all means I'll vote for a list of the first Jewish scientists to work at major research institutions. When there's a demonstrable relationship I'll support the list. If you disagree then vote your conscience. My decision is firm. Durova 20:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if my talk page is a good place for a general discussion, so I'm putting this on the talk pages of Vulturell and Arniep. Yes, I'm all for a list of converts; easy enough to copy the category into a list. Watch, though, for shouts that the category duplicates the list or vice versa. Actually, the administrator I had in mind was User:A Man In Black for restoring the AfD on the list of Jewish fellows of the RSS. - RachelBrown 22:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

As said by other people in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish bankers voting, it had possible bad faith whereas the publishers one seemed to not be - and with less redlinks Astrokey44 22:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Please read up on WP:POINT - if a category you like is proposed for deletion for reason that you consider spurious, do make a good argument for why it should be kept. Do not propose deletion of other categories for spurious reasons. Radiant_>|< 23:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

i do think you have made a point and the "WP:POINT" threatening is an unfair over-reaction, but obviously the majority of users accept / want categories that follow the "nationality + occupation" and in the case of the States "nationality + ethnicity + occupation categories" patterns. i myself think there should be a two types of categories used, one the way you seem to want where occupation is independant of nationality/ethnicity (i might want to search for a writer but not know if he's German, Swiss, Austrian) and one where the two things are together, the way the majority here seem to want it. -Mayumashu 01:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Which means, "do not disrupt Wikipedia (as you are doing). to prove a point." --FuriousFreddy 01:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Um, I found it kind of annoying to wade through all the lists of Jewish this and Jewish that you nominated to delete. There's got to be a better way to make your case than spamming the AfD list, enh? Herostratus 05:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

What are you doing??? If you have a point to make go to that area. Stop making Vfds all over the place!--Jondel 09:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked for 48 hours for your massive, spurious, and disruptive deletion campaign. Please read WP:POINT, and do not do that again. Radiant_>|< 12:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, my problem is not with deletions, it's with getting some people to understand that if I have conclusive proof that someone's Jewish, it's conclusive. I re-read the discussion and just can't believe how dense and ignorant some people can be! Do you know how to make a request for arbitration?

Good luck in your endeavours - I think you're doing a great job, and so does User:Poetlister, so you're not isolated! - RachelBrown 15:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Similar to the publishers (with some odd switched votes related to cleanup efforts on the underlying article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs) 00:43, 21 November 2005

If I followed the sequence correctly, I think you did a bunch of VfD nominations that violate WP:POINT... or do I misunderstand that? If so, that's extremely bad Wikiquette, so I'd strongly advice to avoid that.

But that's not the point of this note. I saw you wrote:

Thanks for your vote. It appears Lulu's hostility to Jewish lists may be driven by an opposition to zionism...I'd guess maybe he equates the listing of Jewish achievements as some kind of nationalist zionist act which in my opinion would be ridiculous but its a possible explanation. (Talk:David_Mertz#Old_Usenet_posts). Arniep 23:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You badly misunderstand things, if that is your belief. In general, I vote to keep list or categories of "<nation/ethnic/religion>-ish <occupation>ers". It depends slightly on how broad the descriptions are, but I'm much more inclusionist than most voters on those things. It has nothing at all to do with "Jewish" versus "Swedish", "Catholic", "African American", etc.

That said, you certainly did wrongly name some categories you had created, but that seems to have been resolved happily enough (we now have "Category:Jewish Foos" rather than the stylistically wrong "Category:Jews in Foo"). I had no issue with the basic idea of having categories, just about naming.

I'd watch out for RachelBrown's weird agenda on this. I happen to have come across List of Jewish jurists via VfD. As you can see, I voted "keep", but then decided to try to bring it up to encyclopedic standards (and also created the analogous List of African American jurists). Exactly like the briar patch I once had to fend through to cleanup List of born-again Christian laypeople, I encountered (not unexpectedly) some editors whose purpose was not creating a good encyclopedia page. Instead, User:RachelBrown and User:Poetlister just want such lists to contain "as many names as possible" (i.e. indifferent to providing evidence that a given name actually belongs there). A different set of editors was equally attached to keeping "as many names as possible" on the born-again Christian list. Both sets of obstructionists made almost exactly the same comments: "a friend of mine told me...", "just trust me, I checked...", etc. In other words, they don't like WP:V. Actually, I had also had similar problems on some LGBT lists/cats.

If you'd like to help getting the list cleaned up, that would be great. Maybe good penitence for the WP:POINT violation. :-) See the talk page, or also my comment at User_talk:Kbdank71#More "support group" lists. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'd be fascinated to know where I said I want such lists to contain "as many names as possible". All I want is to include names of people for whom I have reliable evidence that they are Jewish; unfortunately, appearing in a highy respected reference work is not regarded as adequate evidence by some people. - RachelBrown 11:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

For info - "I've added List of Jewish jurists to the list of requests for mediation. Please take a look and make any comments that you wish. Thanks. --Nlu 16:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)" - RachelBrown 18:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

One simple question: I've just created an article Hazel Cosgrove, Lady Cosgrove and cited the Jewish Year Book. If I add her to the list of Jewish jurists, will Mr Lulu strike her out on the grounds that I haven't shown that she's Jewish? (He's made very clear that he doesn't accept the Jewish Year Book as a valid source.) If the answer's still yes, then what do I do? - RachelBrown 23:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've added my new article and cited the Jewish Year Book for her and for Lords Carlile and Goldsmith. But don't you think that Mr Lulu needs to say on the talk page that he was wrong about the Jewish Year Book? And I've read the latest exchange with you on his talk page - does he really believe what he said? - RachelBrown 00:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've seen what's been going on since my last message. Can't say I'm surprised. Let's press on with mediation. - RachelBrown 13:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Arnie, I removed the animal rights template from Frances Power Cobbe as you asked. The reason I removed Ouida from the activism category is that she is (or was) in the animal liberation category, which is a sub-category of Activism, and pages aren't supposed to be in a category and its subs. I think it's a silly rule myself, so I'm happy to leave her in activism if you are. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Someone over at Talk:Jennifer Aniston is trying to list her as "an American-born English-Greek actress", which I think is totally ridiculous and unencyclopedic - she is an "American actress", pure and simple, and her ethnic background should be reserved for the Early Life section. I know you were working on eliminating all such references (i.e. "DeNiro an Italian-Ameircan actor") so I thought you may want to help out over there.Vulturell 17:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'll use that guide when dealing with these kinds of people. I looked up Aniston's mother's book and was surprised to discover that her mom is at least 1/4 Italian. Didn't know that - thought you'd be interested in knowing.Vulturell 18:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think I will have a look at Nancy Dow pretty soon and adjust the info using her book. I didn't make a mistake, Rachel Stevens is Jewish.Vulturell 19:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The 1920 survey lists 3 Louise Grieco's (born 1914, 1915 and 1918 respectively). The parents' names aren't mentioned, but it does say all of their parents were born in Italy. Anyway, here is what Dow says about her parents in her book:

"Both of my parents came from good families, but like many New Englanders at the time, they had limited access to their feelings.....My maternal grandfather, Louis Grieco, was a hardworking Italian immigrant who came from Melitto, Italy, around the turn of the century. He soon.... became a successful businessman on Fisher's Island in New York." Dow says Louise Grieco went to a private school in Connecticut. She seems to indicate that her parents married in between 1930 and 1933.Vulturell 03:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you're an expert on both of these German artists. I wouldn't want anyone to know that InsideOut America is in process of re-releasing many of Klaus Schulze's works or that Eloy never gained popularity in the United States despite having a good amount of fans.

See http://www.insideoutmusic.com/bands/band-klausschulze.php

Sorry, I just noticed the extra posts on Aniston right now (all I noticed before was the post about Wealthy Fictional Characters) and my subscription to Rootsweb is now out. In general, I find it interesting that I couldn't find a single web site that mentioned Aniston's Scottish and/or Italian heritage! I think it's a good example of how the media (and the net) just spin out one "exotic angle" about an actor (i.e. the Greek part of Aniston) without really getting into details. From what I can tell from Dow's book, she was born somewhere in between 1933 and 1937. Do any of your sites for Grieco mention their New England residence? It's clear Dow's parents lived in either New England or California, not New York.

Also, Category:Jewish Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_25) has gotten itself nominated for deletion again, and obviously it can't be deleted without deleting every other "ethnicity-American" category.... I doubt it will get deleted but I am just tired of all these nominations.Vulturell 05:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

About a year ago I was against deletion in a similar Jewish case. In fact I was very active in defending it, and I had a very long dispute with IZAK, and he finally convinced me that in such a multicontroversial case as Jews, lists are the best solution, for a number of reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 November 2005

One of numerous reasons is that Jewish categories are within unrepairable mess. For Example your "Jewish calssical musicians" ais a cubcategory "musicians by religion". The latter one contains "christian musicians", which lists those who wrote "christian music", rather than those who are christians. It also lists "Muslim musicians", probably created by a lazy anti-Semite, since it contains a single entry. I ams starting to beleive that categories "by nationality" is an anachromism in the era when people mix freely and hardly serves any useful purpose besides clanish pride "he was one of us". mikka (t) 17:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think that categories such as Category:Jewish philosophers, Category:Jewish classical musicians, and Category:Jewish scientists serve a very useful purpose as they show how Jewish people have made a significant contribution to these areas, just as Category:African American musicians shows how African Americans have made a great contribution to popular music.

See. I'm concerned here, because as far as I'm concerned the category structure isn't the place for showing how Jewish people have made a significant contribution to such areas, that's the job of an article. I've already proposed that categories such as Category:African American musicians be replaced with African-Americans in music, which doesn't cause tensions and flaws within the category structure. Let me think about it a while, although at the moment I'm still inclined to delete. Perhaps a compromise lies in a restructuring, Jewish people in? Hiding talk 18:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

User talk:67.171.237.88 created Category:LGBT murderers this morning, you may want to cfd it or watch it so you know when its been cfded. Arniep 16:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up. It amazes me that people pull these kind of stunts while the cfd is still going on. I won't be nominating- have no stomach for starting another debate at this time- but will watch it. -- JJay 17:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

As I said before I have no strong feelings about those eth-prof-natio categories, but there is no way in heck that say, "Jewish Americans" or "Jewish Canadians" should get deleted. It would ruin the (so to speak) "ethnicity-American" project, and leave people like say, Ben Stiller, listed under say, just "Irish-Americans" when they should be listed under both, hence inaccuracy.Vulturell 17:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I guess it's fine to leave him out for now, but I am really annoyed when people call Harry Bloom his "stepfather", thus making me think they don't know exactly what a stepfather is. There is an odd coincidence because Bloom co-starred with Sean Astin in LOTR, and Sean Astin has a Jewish biological father and a non-Jewish father (and mother). However, in his case, John Astin can be called his stepfather, because Sean was conceived while his mother was still married to Michael Tell (his Jewish biological father), and married Astin a couple of weeks later. Also, Bloom is annoying because he ranks as the #1 "Why doesn't some reporter just ask him if he's Jewish instead of talking about his sex life" celebrity of the 2000's.Vulturell 18:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

A stepfather is someone married to your mother who isn't your father; I can't fathom the distinction that is being drawn here. If neither biological parent is Jewish (and he hasn't converted), it's a bit dubious to call him Jewish. We have enough confusion on the "Who is a Jew?" front. - 81.153.41.72 20:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

A stepfather is someone who married your mother after you were conceived but who is not your father. Harry Bloom was married to Orlando's mother before, during and after Orlando's conception. It was some sort of an agreement that Bloom be conceived with a different man, because Harry Bloom was physically unable to have children at his age. We don't know if Bloom or either of his biological parents are ethnically Jewish.Vulturell 20:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

whatever we describe Orlando Bloom's relationship with Harry Bloom as that still doesn't make Orlando jewish does it? Arniep 21:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, we don't know how Jewish Bloom is (i.e. if either of his birth parents are Jewish, which I personally think is likely but again, we don't know). Just wondering, though, how would you describe Astin's relationship to Michael Tell and John Astin? Would you refer to Astin as his stepfather? Ethnically speaking, he is listed under Jewish Americans and Irish Americans (his mother was also 1/4 German, but as you know that becomes 1/8th with Astin). Would you agree with this listing?Vulturell 23:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Actually, his mother didn't have an affair per se. Harry Bloom and Sonia Copeland had some sort of agreement in that she wanted to have children but he physically couldn't so they made an agreement that Colin Stone, a family friend, would father the children. It's a very odd story, but that's the story. And frustratingly enough there are no details (yet) on Colin Stone or much information about Sonia Copeland. I'm guessing sooner or later there will be and I will know for sure.Vulturell 23:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't think she mentions her exact birth date or place in the book. BUT... I did search for her on Rootsweb, last week, and if she was born in California it would have shown up (I got no results). So I am guessing she was born in New England, since she called her parents New Englanders. Also, where did you read about Bloom's mother not being Jewish (aside from his Wiki entry, which I put the information about her parentage into myself)? I'm wondering if you read it on Wiki, or saw the same source I used, or possibly a different one.Vulturell 02:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of Dow, I am thinking maybe we should nominate her article for deletion and see what people think. She really isn't notable for anything in acting or writing, and her relationship to Aniston belongs under Aniston's page. We could similarly start an entry for Jane Carter, Aaron Carter's mom, because there was also some stuff in the press about her and she wrote TWO books about her kids. And so on and so on when it comes to celebrity relatives who are not notable for anything other than their relation and maybe a book. Tell me what you think but I am leaning towards an AFD for Dow.Vulturell 02:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

What is the point of coming in with a late vote for an option that has no chance of being implemented? All it can do is lead to a "no consensus" result and the retention of the lousy existing name. Please consider doing wikipedia a service by amending your vote to support category:Landmarks of the Philippines. Why do you think the Philippines needs a "locations" category when no other country does? The standard categories cover everything perfectly well. This has only happened because a local with a poor grasp of English took action before I got to the Philippines menu and I beg you to assist with the removal of this anomaly, which just causes confusion and makes wikipedia look amateurish. There is no change at all that such an inconsistency would be maintained in a professional encyclopedia. CalJW 11:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've seen your reply on my talk page. The very phrase "under the impression" reconfirms the vagueness of this category. It is hopeless, meaningless and totally unnecessary. I have categorised 90 countries. Not a single one of the others has such a category. Not one of them would benefit for having it. Not one of millions of users has seen fit to create it. The standard categories do everything that is necessary and they do it better. Once again I implore you to reconsider your vote. CalJW 20:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I was mostly cleaning out generic fan sites (particularly Westlord); if they were used as references for the article, though, just mark them as such, and I'll leave 'em alone. :) tregoweth 03:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I read your comments and I am pretty sure we all agree with each other and this has been a case of miscommunication. For some reason the category name didn't show up on the AFD page, but thanks for sorting it out. Anyway, do you have an answer to my questions about Bloom and Dow?Vulturell 05:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Thanks for the note, Arnie. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Not sure I follow. The article says he had one Jewish great-grandmother. It doesn't say anything beyond that, at least not that I saw. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

That's exactly right. We don't know, so his name shouldn't be on the page. All the edits to that page should conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research i.e. should have credible sources, and I think we should also come up with consistent and sensible entry criteria. Jack Straw does not self-identify as a Jew. Nor did his parents, so far as I know, and possibly nor did his grandparents, or three or his great-grandparents. It's therefore absurd to have his name on that list, and there are probably others that are just as doubtful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think having to close all his AfD noms as a speedy Keep will chill him down a bit. I don't see any major violations here, other than the obvious IP sockpuppetry, which any closing admin would ignore anyway. Please remember that non-admins are allowed to close AfDs, provided that the result is an undisputed "Keep", and the closing is done in good faith, ie the closer wasn't personally involved or has a personal interest in the outcome. In this case, since the outcome was the opposite of what he was hoping for, I decided to accept his closing of those AfDs, which would have been closed as a Keep anyway. His "condition" was, of course, invalid: once an AfD is opened, you cannot simply remove it, especially if you were the nominator.

You seem to be on top of this issue, so I'll leave it in your hands. Alert me if you see anything that requires admin intervention, and keep up the good work! Owen× ☎ 16:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't feel a block is neccessary. I already explained to him what he did wrong with closing those AfDs, and he corrected it based on my instructions. He hasn't done any real damage so far, and I'd rather turn him into a useful contributor, if I can. Owen× ☎ 16:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, are you not going to warn him not to use sock puppet votes? Arniep

No, and please don't warn him either. IP votes are ignored by all admins; eventaully he'll stop. If you warn him now, he'll just find more sophisticated ways to interfere. Owen× ☎ 16:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

P.S.: Thanks for tidying up my Talk page! :) Owen× ☎ 17:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi I feel really quite upset that you are not even warning this user. It is damaging my confidence in Wikipedia, please can you reconsider at least a warning? Arniep 17:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Arniep, there's no reason for you to be upset. What will warning him achieve, exactly? Do you think he is getting away with anything? Tell me, if someone wrote something nasty about you on a washroom door, would you go chasing him for vengeance? The more attention we give those anonymous votes, the more of them we'll get. Do you have an instant messenger account? Email me your alias and let's chat about this. Owen× ☎ 17:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

This has now become a huge, bloody mess with List of British Jews under attack by 40YearOldVirgin (or maybe SlimVirgin), List of Jewish Americans being voted "Keep" on by most people despite the need to make it a group of links to smaller categories since it is so big, and something like 20Keeps to 15Deletes for the Jewish categories. I think being bold, as you said somewhere else, is a good idea here. Maybe we need to post a small policy detailing the 1/4 rule on every ethnicity based list and category and make it an official policy somehow. Yes, I'm sure that user you were talking about is a Mr. Sock Puppet Man, but it's pretty clear that he was right, despite that, about the pointlessness of having a "List Of Jewish Americans" and a few smaller, near-identical lists. We need to merge the info and make it similar to the way List of Jews is organized. Also, I'd appreciate your vote - either way - on Nancy Dow.Vulturell 20:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Arniep, do you have the names of those registered sock accounts? Would you be able to provide evidence on an RfC? Feel free to open an RfC if you want to, but I think you are overreacting. Remember, so far all those AfDs have gone your way; he was not able to get any of them deleted, right? Do you think placing a "Stop using anons to vote on AfD or else!" warning on his talk page would help us? Give it another day of thought before you rush into an RfC, please. In most cases, nobody comes out a winner from these public skirmishes. Owen× ☎ 21:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Once again, the other two votes are anons, and therefore will be ignored by the closing admin. Arniep, the admins here know what they're doing, and making a fuss about it now wouldn't help anyone. This AfD will probably end up as a "No consensus". If those are really StabRule's sockpuppets, then he is wasting his time, and if you keep chasing him—so are you. Owen× ☎ 22:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am sure that those users are sock puppets, but I am not an administrator and I can't do anything about it. If you want to tell someone I will back you up, that's the best I can do.Vulturell 23:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

There does seem to be some interesting goings-on with User:StabRule, his actions involving these AfD's as well as his repeated wiping of his User talk page when people posted comments regarding this issue there. I doubt the pages will be deleted; and I think the best we can do at this point is if you have already voted on the AfD, then leave the discussion and it will get sorted out. I do not think the pages will get deleted. If things don't calm down, I would recommend a request for mediation. Peyna 23:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The best I can recommend is then to make a backup of these pages in subpages to your user talk page; then you can have a survey or RFC on the whole thing; which is what should have been done after an attempt at consensus on the talk page. StabRule is using AfD for something that was never even discussed on the talk page. For as familiar as he claims to be with Wikipedia Policy, he does not follow it.

Consensus does not mean voting it out on AfD, it means discussing what should take place on the talk page, then coming to a consensus on it. That could include some sort of compromise, but does not involve voting. I would prefer if someone speedy kept all of these AfDs and then it can be discussed on the talk pages first. If that does not get anywhere, then there can be a formal survey or vote. Peyna 00:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

As I see, there seems to be the misconception that the anon votes are from me. I repeat I did not vote more than once under any anon name. Though I do know who the anon contributions might be, I can attest they were not me and I had no say in the people's decisions. Also, I still stand by my AFD vote on List of Jewish Americans. StabRule 01:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Is this an informal admission that you went rallying the troops to vote for your cause? We know you actively did so on talk pages here on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't put it past you contacting your friends in the area to vote with you as well. Just as suspect as everything else you've done. Peyna 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

ah it is just a coincidence they all voted the same way as you, and they all run one after the other. I see. Arniep 02:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

If it's one vote per user I don't see the problem. It's their decision to put keep or delete. Isn't it? StabRule 02:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry StabRule but your explanation is pretty weak, I'm off to bed now byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Arniep 02:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

What else is there to explain? One vote per user - no problem, ay? Also, stop abusing the AFD on List of Jewish Americans you know why I put it up. StabRule 02:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as I suspected he would StabRule has been playing Mr.Nice since yesterday to try and get you to ignore they past behaviour. I urge you to see through their facade, there is every reason to believe they will continue to try and cheat the system to try and force their own viewpoint in the future. Arniep 14:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't hold grudges, but I'm always skeptical. So far he is behaving, so we will see where this leads. If anything comes up in the future; you'll have these discussions as a record of past occurrences so there is nothing to worry about. I'd rather see things get accomplished than anything else. Peyna 14:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, in my opinion he is only behaving as you were the one who showed support to me, therefore he has picked you out to try and make sure you will not support me on the rfc. I would really appreciate your support on this. Arniep 14:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

His behavior changed prior to your RFC; but I would probably abstain from participating too much in the RFC given my involvement in the whole mess. It is best to let uninvolved third parties sort out what happened since they will tend to be more neutral. Peyna 14:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I would probably endorse an RfC, but it would be depend on the exact accusations, etc. That's about the most you'll get out of me. Peyna 14:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Arniep is just acting like a child. He's offend his precious Jewish Lists were getting voted for deletion, thus threw a fit by making dozens of WP:POINT afds - which got him temporarily banned. Meanwhile, I aided to productively fix up lists and, albeit suspiciously, informed a few wikipedian friends of AFD votes for them to vote on - which is hardly conspiring, as it was their decision to vote keep or delete. I frankly don't care about an RFC -- don't even know what it is. And just to show you I'm not acting nice to anyone just to get support --- I personally still think User:Peyna acts like an asshole. There. StabRule 21:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to draw your attention to the recent changes I've made to List of Jewish Americans. I posted a comment on the AfD page as well. Thanks. Peyna 02:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The category is too large at the moment and everybody can be placed in one or more subcategories. So please specify an instrument or a genre in case you feel that there is more to be said instead of "musician". The point is that the term is too broad and there were many pages of musicians. In case of singers or guitarists, it's not that important since there are no subcategories, but in this case there are. So please move it in an appropriate subcategory. KittenKlub 21:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

There is no problem with putting somebody in multiple categories, because those categories are distinct. So put him as many as you'd like. KittenKlub 21:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm back. Yes, "Jewish American" OR "Italian American" CAN be perceived as labels, but not necessarily so AND also "1948 births" is also a label. So is "People from New York". These are just biographical facts about a person and have nothing to do with who they are anyway. You do understand that the whole self-identify thing is POV? Someone doing an interview for an Italian magazine or a Jewish magazine may come out with a more Italian or Jewish angle than general. And I think most people don't identify with anything. For example the Phoenixes (i.e. Joaquin Phoenix, etc.). I doubt they identify as Irish or Spanish (their father's ancestry), I don't think they seriously think of themselves as very Jewish either, probably just ethnically and culturally. But Summer Phoenix was starring a movie about a Jewish character and said "I'm Jewish" in an interview about the film. Would we list her as a Jewish American but the other Phoenixes as "nothing" (i.e. people of whatever descent I guess)? This whole subject becomes very subjective, and you can have hundreds of arguments like the one we could start on the Phoenixes, DeNiro or Downey Jr. (and I am just using an example). Like I keep telling you, this whole thing - and in fact everything in an encyclopedia - should be based on facts, not on perceptions. A lot of actors have public images relating to a certain ethnicity, and it doesn't make them huge identifiers with that ethnicity in real life (I am pretty sure people perceive Jason Biggs as Jewish based on his film roles, it doesn't make him Jewish). Madonna may like to call herself English but it doesn't make her an English American. Same thing for nationalities - people may hate their own country, but they are still nationals of it. Johnny Depp is an American, wouldn't you say? He isn't a French actor, but an American one, despite his lifestyle and identification. Facts would include birth date, year, place, nationality, ethnicity, and religion - which is different than ethnicity. It's true that there is a Jewish religion separate from the ethnicity, that's why I think we should just keep all the terms as they are now. We don't have the same problem as we would with British people, because if you put "Jewish-British people" on someone who is 3/4 British and 1/4 Jewish, they wouldn't be under any other ethnic category, thus misleading. This problem doesn't exist with Americans. And you said it - "Native Americans" are labeled "Native Americans", precisely because they are such.Vulturell 02:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I was hoping you'd vote on Nancy Dow. C'mon, you know you want to.Vulturell 03:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if you have had a chance to glance at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fair use and comics, but as I feel you are someone who has an interest and also relevant experience in this area I would appreciate it if you could find the time to read it and comment, as I think it is important to clarify the situation. I would dearly value your input and insights, thanks in advance, Hiding talk 14:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

It really wasn't necessary, but I appreciate the gesture. (My annoyance was genuine, but the kick comment was purely tongue-in-cheek. :p) Peace. :) deeceevoice 19:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I will shortly be starting a rfc on you. Regards

k. StabRule 21:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

You wrote:

"Hi, can you use film not movie when you do disambigs (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Film_titles)?"

All right. I'd seen both used and I've been using "movie" because that's my normal word for it. But if the consensus is to use "film," so be it. -- BRG 18:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid it's come up again...

There's a vote to delete the category, and the Irish-Scots stub, which I created (granted it's pretty poor at mo, but IMO needs improved, not deleted).

There's still a category "Irish-Scots" and there are twenty names on it.

The Ulster Scots page mentions "Irish-Scots" and explains how they're quite distinct.

I'm most definitely Irish-Scots, both parents being Irish, but I don't understand the problem with Irish-Scots regarding how far you go back, one or two parents etc. Like Ronald Reagan gets to be Irish-American and Scottish-American...like, how far does he go back?

And what about African-Americans - some of them go back three or four hundred years before they last "saw" Africa?

Don't really understand the fuss between "Irish-Scots" or "Scottish People of Irish Descent"... I mean, are we gonna start saying that Irish-Americans have to call themselves "American People of Irish Descent", and are we gonna have "American People of African Descent"...

Silly sausages....

Please add your vote to the vote for deletion?

 Camillus ^(talk) 03:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Please direct your attention to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#List_of_Jewish_jurists. If you are interested, please indicate so there. Thanks very much! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

OK - done. Have you looked recently at the list of Jewish FRSs (blocked at Antidote's request) and Jewish historians? - Poetlister 16:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Arnie, regarding Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote, this is just to make you aware that, in order to stay listed, the RfC must be certified within 48 hours by two users who have each tried and failed to resolve the same dispute, and evidence of those efforts must be provided within the 48-hour period. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good, Arnie. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I wanted the chance to review and make sure I wanted to certify I had tried and failed to resolve the same dispute before saying so; I know I can endorse it. If I have time later I'll look into it more; or if you want to prove it for me that's fine. Peyna 17:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Arnie, you have broken a rule, which means you must surrender immediately to the nearest arbcom member, who will take you to a place of punishment, and may God be with you! ;-D No, in fact, I don't see that you've done anything wrong. That section just means don't edit other people's summaries if you've edited the first one, I think. The important thing is to make sure that at least two of the certifiers have tried and failed to resolve the same dispute, and provide the diffs within 48 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, I just saw the sock puppet allegations. Have you considered requesting a user check? People with access are listed here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I agree with several things concerning the RfC, but I'm still not entirely convinced of all the claims it makes. I also think I'd rather move on from the whole event at some level. I'll also hesitantly admit that your(User:Arniep) behavior during that period showed some lapses of judgment. Mine did too, but I think yours was slightly more problemattic as you received some punishment. For these and other reasons I've decided to stay out of RfC page, especially as I couldn't count as an outside view. I hope you do not take this as an insult, but I also hope that in the future you refrain from going to my talk page concerning RfCs. I'd rather not be involved in them for the most part. Thank you for your time.--T. Anthony 01:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have posted more evidence regarding Antidote's sockpuppeteering.--Pecher 17:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Every image may require a source, but I guarantee you that if you check 80% of the images on here - they will not contain a link to the source. Having this a basis against me just shows how vehement you are to wipe me off wikipedia. Please see my comment on the RF C in reference to that. Antidote 21:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why the hell would I admit to something that ISN'T true?! There's nothing on wikipedia that says I cannot edit with acquantances and friends - and that is exactly what I've been doing - much in the same way that you edit with some of the users on the Jewish pages. There is no reason I would be so adamant about my denial of this - for having extra usernames is utterly pointless for me and gives me no advantage over anything! I admit I was rude to some users (but so were they to me), and I admit I was in many edit wars (who isn't?!?!). I am frankly upset at your uncalled for drill of my image uploads though, but that's another story. Antidote 22:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

No, that's what you wish to think because you are entirely too protective of them. So in an attempt at revenge (so it seems) you try to dig up as much on me as possible (like uncited images). Antidote 22:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't care about those lists, what I care about is your huge disruptive behaviour and your using multiple accounts to get your own way. Regards Arniep 22:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

You have yet to explain how my behavior is any more disruptive than productive. You don't even mention any of my good intentions, just point out that I have been in many edits wars (as if you haven't). And all of which may I say turned out to improve the pages. All you've lately been doing is making a huge mess trying to get revenge on me and my acquantances - I don't see what you'll get out of it but a feeling of accomplishment after trying to get rid of fellow Wikipedians. Anyway, I'm very ill today and will now go to sleep. Have fun. Antidote 22:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Told the truth about what? How are my friends meatpuppets? It says specifically a meatpuppet is a single purpose user. Incase you haven't noticed, everyone you have encountered has a large belt of edits under their sleeve. Antidote 01:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hello they are not your friends they are you. You set up your User:StabRule account for the express purpose of using it as an extra account to delete Jewish lists because people were questioning the anonymous votes which is quite obvious if you look at the first contributions. Regards Arniep 01:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Arniep! Stay out Antidote and calm down! You have to respond only on your RfC. -- Bonaparte talk 14:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thankx for info.-- Bonaparte talk 17:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

hmm, I took that as meaning I can't edit anyone's comments specifically - but I guess that's given. Anyway, like I said before - I'm done trying to convince anyone. Trust me, at this point I wish they in fact were my "sockpuppets" but there's really no point in lying about it just to end the RFC. Anyway, I hope you had fun going through all that work. Maybe we'll edit the same article at one point. Antidote 23:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I know I did - there's no need to tell me I did. Anyway, http://www.angelfire.com/music4/szymanowski/. Antidote 23:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

(from JBETAK user talk)

You're right - they were not "your lists" - but I was using that word in a possessive form since you implied several times that you take them personally. Anyway, I appreciate that you apologized for that and I don't like it when I need to use it against you but seeing as you have used my "suspected" sock-meat-whatever puppetry against me so many times already and you have purposely diggen up edit wars on me to discredit my ability as an editor (all for what I see it as - revenge) makes me see it as a notable addition. If the sock-meat-whatever-puppetry claims were true I'd already be apologizing for them. Antidote 21:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply