Bobfrombrockley

Welcome!

Hello, Bobfrombrockley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  mgekelly 11:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Bob - I just now saw my edit summary on Neo-fascism and religion, and I just want to be sure you don't think I was "shouting" -- I used the ALLCAPS only because there's no bold available in edit summaries. (I hope my explanation was clear enough!) Cheers :) Cgingold 14:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't have read it that way, but that's really nice of you to be worried. I think I'm persuaded too. BobFromBrockley 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm acting as advocate for an editor who has been having issues with Mitsos. As part of the DR process, we have opened an RfC in order to get community input on behavior that several users feel is uncivil and biased. Seeing as how you have interacted with Mitsos in the past, we would appreciate any input you may have on the matter. Please visit the Request for Comment page and leave your thoughts. Thanks very much, →Bobby← 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you edit Jewish related articles. Would you be interested in joining wikiproject:Judaism? ta! frummer 12:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just noticed you've run across that good old anonymous author who wrecked havoc on the Salvador Allende article recently. He's been recently banned for personal attacks and the Allende article (even it's talk page for a few days) had to be locked from editing by annon's. He's even attacked a number of admins over those issues. If I were you I'd report him if he continues his disruptive edits, though a long term block is not an option as his IP changes daily.--Caranorn 20:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Have been away from wikipedia for a while, will see if he has struck again, and then consider reporting. BobFromBrockley 17:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the site! It's a privilege to work with you. As you probably know, you are among only a handful of specialists working on articles related to 20th century politics. 172 | Talk 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks 172! I'm not sure how much of a specialist I am though... BobFromBrockley 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Glad to hear that you're not upset about the 'rejiocing' incident. At the time, I assumed that you were a patriotard, and was unaware of your stance regarding the whole "class war" thing. *raises fist* As for "Jewish anarchism", I assume that JaneDoe put the link in on the basis of who I am as a person, rather than what I write on my blog. DayKart 11:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry to bother you, but I really need some help. There is an ongoing campaign by a few editors to portray Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism. As part of this effort (a debate that stretches back to 2004), there are a tiny handful of editors who revert and redirect National Socialism to Nazism. I believe a majority of editors support redirecting National Socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation). I realize we just had a poll on the Nazism page where I thought this issue was settled, but apparently the struggle is not over. Please consider voting in the new poll, or adding a comment at: Talk:Nazism#Survey:_redirecting_National_Socialism. Also consider notifying other editors with an interest in this matter. I am doing the best I can, but need assistance. Thanks.--Cberlet 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I've wanted for some time to re-integrate types of socialism into the main socialism article, and I was hoping you could help me with this project. The "controversial classifications" section should be moved to a new article entitled interpretations of socialism (temporary proposed title), where we should talk about all the different definitions of socialism used by self-identified socialists. The rest should be checked for quality, improved if necessary, and then finally moved to socialism. What do you think? -- Nikodemos 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

After a day or two of thought, I'm still really undecided on that. I think the article as it is is pretty poor, but I think it has a purpose. I'd like it make clear there have been three major currents of socialism: revolutionary or Marxian socialism, democratic socialism and social democracy, and libertarian socialism, as well as other minor currents, such as the ethnic ones. Each of the sections would give brief description of that tradition, name some major figure and movements, and then really briefly introduce the major sub-categories within them (e.g. revolutionary socialism would introduce Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc, with no more than a sentence each). However, this would mean a complete re-write, very time consuming, so maybe your solution is better. Have you raised this on the discussion pages of the relevant articles? BobFromBrockley 15:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, having looked at liberalism and conservatism, I think I've come over to your position. So, is this right, socialism should have:

• • • some history (which is there now, but perhaps could be trimmed, as there is a history of socialism article)
    • something on the main schools of socialism (akin to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Trends_within_liberalism section or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#Schools_of_Conservatism section
    • something on socialist political theory and economics
    • perhaps something on socialism today

Is that what you're thinking? But clearly this needs to be raised on talk pages first. BobFromBrockley 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your edit to this article because I'm pretty sure that this guy, who wrote the article you linked to, is not the subject of the Daniel McGowan article here. --OnoremDil 11:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! BobFromBrockley 11:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem; I'm glad to help.

I've done a lot of work on the Szmul Zygielbojm article, and I had put a "dead link" in there to the JSG, so I was pleasantly surprised to find a new article about the JSG. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Yiddishism, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Tiswas^(t) 15:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

One thing that Lenin said that is almost universally agreed by socialists was in his State and Revolution. Where under the section for "the First Phase of Communist Society" he outlined the two basic economic principles of socialism:

"He who does not work, neither shall he eat." and "An equal ammount of products for an equal ammount of labor"

As you know there's already an article for "From each according to ability, to each according to need" which is the economic principle of communist society. Do you think that there should be an article for the economic principles of socialism, since they have been mentioned by every major contributor to Marxist theory? Since you are one of the few people on wikipedia who isn't full of themselves and knows what he's talking about, I felt I had to ask before I made the article. (Demigod Ron 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

Thanks for kind words! There is a socialist economics page - maybe what you're talking about could be a section there? Perhaps in this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics#After_Marx ? BobFromBrockley 12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

After much procrastination, I made the article he who does not work, neither shall he eat. Check it out and tell me what you think. Right now its bare-bones, but I'm sure the other Marxists will eventually find it and contribute their own knowledge.

Looks good, Demigod. I have done a minor edit, and added one inbound link. BobFromBrockley 14:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help. Now I'm trying to figure out how to write "an equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor" since that slogan has been said several different ways. In the Gotha critique Marx said something along the lines of "the worker recieves from society...exactly what he gives to it." While Lassalle said that "the worker recieves the undiminished product of his labor." Even Stalin had his own version of the slogan. This will make that article difficult to tackle. If you have any ideas, do tell. (Demigod Ron 00:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

Hi Bob, Thanks for taking the time to read through all that stuff! You are quite right, this piece of mine would skew the entrism page. I'll make a new article and we can just do a link.

Just to let you know, on the socialism article, I have a couple of proposals in the "mixed economy" discussion Talk:Socialism#Mixed_economies.

I'm happy to accept red deathy's recommendations on them, but with the reservation that in the future we should draw up a short paragraph indicating the socialist critique of the Soviet Union. I have worked up some references, and have a clear idea what I want, but got no further, and will hopefully return to it at some point.

In relation to my point 3. in Talk:Socialism#The_Russian_Revolution_provoked_a_powerful_reaction... I know that in any article, changing the opening lines of the article needs careful consideration, and again I'm in no hurry. I understand your caution. Jacob Haller has added a comment as you know, and I have attempted a draft, drawing from the same sources as 172 did. Indeed, this para is from

I've no outstanding discussions on the history of socialism talk page (that I know of), but I think there is much to be done. Andysoh 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bob, feel free to delete this if you already know about it, but a new "part history and part political analysis" on AFA has just been published - you might get a review copy if you ask for one from the publisher. The text is not available online: it was printed (in cut form) in Black Flag and has been 'adapted' (not very well) by libcom.

I have not deleted your reference to John Locke on this page though it has previously been discussed and rejected. Locke essentially advanced a labour theory of property - which is not the same thing. Moreover, Locke is attempting to justify property whereas Marx etc are trying to explain price, which is a real world phenomenon, justified or otherwise. Marx, for one, argues that labour-based valuation is unjustified (See Gotha Program).--Jack Upland 09:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Jack. I was new to the article, and came to it from another, where Locke and labour theory of value were invoked, and noticed no mention of Locke on LTOV article. I think Locke is important in development of LTOV, even if it may not be accurate to say he articulated it. I'll have another look. Thanks for graciously not deleting! BobFromBrockley 09:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

On reflection I think it should stay because someone is always going to reinsert it. The text as it stands says that the LTV is 'traced' to Locke, which is suitably non-committal. Marx cites Franklin as the originator of the theory. I haven't read all the texts so I can't comment. I have read extracts from Locke which explain his justification of property, though, and these are not economic as such, but rather a - very historically inaccurate - explanation and justification of social inequaliy. I am extremely wary of anything that lends support to the misrepresentation of the LTV as a theory of what ought to be rather than what is. This leads to a totally misunderstanding of its application and falsifies its place in the history of economic thought - Adam Smith & co didn't see it as moralistic.--Jack Upland 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've re-read the article, and think that the way it is formulated does not say that Locke authored the LTV, so I don't think it is inaccurate. It seems to me he should be mentioned in the article, but obviously not in a way that distorts his views. So, feel free to edit it out if you think it makes too strong a claim! BobFromBrockley 09:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

As I said, should be OK as is - better inside the tent pissing out etc...--Jack Upland 17:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to let you know that thefeargod already stripped out most of the information from the article stating that it was already in other locations on wikipedia. His intent it seems is to leave a page full of tables of operations with little or no desciption of what they are for.--Kumioko 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Das Naye Leben, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Das Naye Leben is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Das Naye Leben, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Wikipedian, I thought you might be interested in the note (below) I've left on the Protocols of Zion page.

Dear dedicated fellow Wikipedians,

Those of you who know about The Protocols know that when it/thy reached the West, like Rats from a sinking ship, used it through "appropriate" anonymous editorial commentary, to blame the Jews for Bolshevism. So I would imagine that you all would be interested in what's happening to the article above. I hope you guys and gals can come over there and contribute your valuable input and, hopefully, support, to the changes I've found it necesary to make.

Best regards,

Best wishes to you, --Ludvikus 18:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nice work at The Jewish Bolshevism!!! Much appreciated.

I'd like to solicit your help in the above. I'm tracing the roots of Jewish Bolshevism.

I think I'm getting Reversions from contemporary White Russians. And I think your in the above input would be helpful.

Best, --Ludvikus 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Have had a look and made some minor edits, plus have commented at talkpage of Jewish Bolshevism. All are now on my watchpage. BobFromBrockley 09:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I saw your comments on the talk page for Territorialism. I am comfused why the JAO was so hard to get included in the article. I have added the following to the article, with a proper reference, and posted it on its talk page;

Apart from the (ITO), within the USSR there was also a Territorialist effort in Ukraine, the Crimea and then towards Birobidzan, where a "Jewish Autonomous Region" was established in 1934. [1] Thanks and take good care. Culturalrevival 11:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that Zionists are unwilling to accept that there were a range of different forms of Jewish political movements, including non-Zionist forms of Jewish nationalism, and are unwilling to accept that there was a historical period when the Stalinist project coincided in some of its aims with Jewish national aspirations. Some of the same editors who have tried to keep the JAO out of articles like Territorialism also reject the need for a Jewish nationalism article, as they do not believe that there are other forms of Jewish nationalism than Zionism. BobFromBrockley 10:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for combining these with the three pilers of neoconservatism. Nice work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.247.152 (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bob, since her name is on your to-do list, I thought you might be interested that I've started working on an article about Milly Witkop. It's currently still a sub-page of my user page. Feel free to contribute nonetheless.--Carabinieri 01:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's brilliant Carabinieri. I'll try and add stuff later! By the way, I liked the pages you've been involved in creating. BobFromBrockley 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great. Thanks, I'm not unimpressed by your work.--Carabinieri 00:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bob. We are purging talk pages without articles. I came across one you'd made with notes/refs for a Majer Bogdanski article, so I moved it into your user space. It is now at User:Bobfrombrockley/Majer Bogdanski. All the best! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

-- though actually it wasn't that box that you lifted from my page, but the other two. Glad to see that others find them relevant! RolandR 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing some cleanup work on the Iraqi Insurgency article. That article was a mess! It still is but far better now. Before it sounded like it was writen by a insurgent, or a supporter of the insurgency. Do you plan on doing more work on the article? Cheers!--SJP 00:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to keep monitoring it, to make sure the Resistance polemic doesn't creep back in, but I don't think I have the time or knowledge to do the work that really needs doing of updating it and stripping out OR. Thanks too for your excellent work on it! BobFromBrockley 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your welcome:) When I find the time, I will try to source it some more, and take out some more OR. Have a nice day.--SJP 22:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Maurice Ludmer, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.irr.org.uk/faces/ludmer.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 10:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bob,

I notice you've hacked around with the attempt by someone in Anti-Zionism to claim that Finkelstein and Chomsky aren't really proper Jews at all but just have a Jewish origin. I felt it necessary to insert more from Chomsky to demonstrate that he regards himself as someone who grew up a Jew with views on Zionism that would not have been out of the ordinary at the time. At least he hasn't yet been labelled as self-hating in the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's a very good quote you inserted Peter. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Bob. I found it elsewhere on Wiki.

BTW, I found your library list an interesting skim. Nice to see Bakunin, Kropotkin and Rocker on a Marxist's list. And we also have books my Moorcock, Rushdie, Sinclair and Ackroyd in common.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bob, it's me again. I created a page about the Jewish anarchist journal Germinal from London. Since you appear to have some command of the Hebrew alphabet, could you add the original Yiddish spelling to the beginning of the article?--Carabinieri (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Carabinieri, I really appreciate the work you're doing on wikipedia! The transliteration of the issue in the jpeg is Zsherminal, which is what the article says. In standard Yiddish now, I think it would have been written differently, in a way that would be transliterated as Dzherminal (with the zh bit sounding like a French J, as in jamais), because there is no letter for the J sound (as in Englsh judge) in Yiddish, but spelling then was idiosyncratic, especially as Rocker was, as you note in the article, only a learner - essentially he wrote German in Hebrew letters. The headline on the front page in the jpeg is "Der anarchizmus un di menshliche shprache" which I think roughly means "Anarchism and human language", but in a very German version of Yiddish. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Israel Narodiczky/Yisroel Naroditski deserves a page of his own, as playing a key role in the lives of Isaac Rosenberg, Hayyim Nahman Bialik and Avram Stencl as well as Rocker. Another task to add to the list... BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Wow, I can understand that (without any knowledge of Yiddish, just German). What I was asking is if you could add the Hebrew letters to the article, like the articles on Israel or Yiddishkeit. This may sound too simple, considering there's an image with the Hebrew letters right in the article, but looking at my keyboard all I see is Latin letters and I have no idea how to do this. Currently, I'm working on a couple of other topics, but I'll look into Israel Narodiczky.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Ok, never mind. Danny has added the Yiddish name now.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry: I completely misunderstood. Glad Danny got there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see that you use Library Thing and you use Wikiuserboxes. Did you know you can make one of these?

This user is a Thingamabrarian. Click here to see my books.

Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fantastic, thank you! I'll put it on my userpage. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Commission on Integration and Cohesion, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.communities.gov.uk/communities/commissionintegration. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bob

Please look at the discussion on Talk:Gilad Atzmon about reliable sources and Jews Against Zionism, and chip in with any thoughts tou may have. RolandR (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think we can quite safely conclude now that JSDP and PZ are not the same. However, this underlines the importance of creating precise organizational article on PZ, rather than describing it as a diffuse international movement. For exampe we need a Jewish Social Democratic Workers Party (Poalei Zion) article (or possibly more, were the Polish and Russian parties separate entities?). --Soman (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree that these specific party pages are needed - although I think they should be in addition to the main page. Of course, there are a number of problems that will come up(although these can be dealt with): in particular the fact that changing borders in Central/Eastern Europe meant that national parties often split and fused in complicated ways, making it harder to pin them down, and the fact that these parties were operating in more than one language, and their names in different languages might not translate directly... I am very busy at the moment, but I will try and work on this project.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yo Bob, could you explain the rationale behind this edit? Is the quote not from the citation referenced? Skomorokh 11:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

In one sentence mentioning Martin W in an aside in a paragraph about Class War in a book that covers an immense amount of ground about thousands of years of London history, Clive Bloom does say that Martin W was "drawn to" fascism, but gives no explanation about what this vague term means, or what evidence there is for this. (There is no source cited.) In fact, Martin Wright was never drawn to fascism, and it seems to me scurilous in a biography of a living (and indeed ill) person to mention an accusation that has one single dubious and ambiguous source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Wright has said that as a teenager in the late 1960s, he accepted some of Enoch Powell's message, but that by the time he reached adulthood he had long left this behind him.[2] But that is a big difference from saying he was "drawn to fascism", whatever that means. I don't think it is appropriate that Wikipedia contributes to a smear. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, Bob. I just wanted to say that I agreed with your comments at the AfD for Zionism and Racism, except for one, which is what I wanted to just schmuz with you about for a second. You said that the demonisation of a country is OK, and not reason to delete an article. It seems to me that that is not what an encyclopedia is all about, and while we might have "issues" about Pakistan or Syria or India, for example; an encyclopedia would not carry articles expressly demonising those countries -- if there were criticism, it would be put into the appropriate article, eg Pakistan or Israel. Or re Israel, Finklestein's theories could be discussed on the Finklestein page etc. Isn't that in a way what the WP:NOT is talking about when it talks about a climate of mutual respect? It strikes me that this article is just another negative platform for discussion of Israel and as such breaks a number of rules. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Otherwise I agree with you 100% and thought your comment extremely well written and well thought-out. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Tundrabuggy. I did not mean that it is OK for Wikipedia to demonise a country; I would be completely against that, and spend some of my wikipedia time trying to address such things. If an article by definition demonises a country, then it has no right to exist. But if a valid article is written in a POV way to demonise a country, than it can be edited to not do so. As it stood, the article was a soapbox platform, but it could be otherwise. Unfortunately, it is flawed in so many other ways, that it needs to go! BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I don't much care for the wording I used, but at least it has no ambiguity to it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

You had stated in the discussion page of Red Action that you are friends with some of the members. I have tried to contact them but so far have not had any luck in doing so. I'm interested in their group and was hoping to ask them some questions concerning their beliefs, stance on certain subjects and membership status. Is there any way you could put me in touch with them? Otherwise, if you feel equipped to answer these questions I would be more than happy to get your e-mail or give you mine to converse. Any help you could provide in this area would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.184.187 (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I am completely out of touch with all the Red Action people I used to know. You could try approaching via one of the IWCA websites, which are probably more regularly used than the RA one. RA are, understandably, very cagey about these sorts of contacts though! BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think your recent edit to Anti-Zionism was lost when I undid a change made by CJCurrie. The issue was the necessity of presenting context first, and was not you edit. Sorry. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, Bob. I've written two articles on Jewish anarchists you might be interested in; Alexander Schapiro and Sascha Schapiro. I think you mentioned one of them in a blog post somewhere, so if you have anything to add or correct, it would be most appreciated! Regards, Skomorokh 04:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great articles! Thanks for the tip.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I read your message in my discussion page about the ideology of PDL. I think as you that this party is collocated at the right-wing position because some politics of the party are rightist such as the immigration, the economic politics and the populism of the leader. In my country (Italy) says that PDL is a center-right party but I don't believe in it because there are a lot of nao-fascists and conservative liberals and the christian democrats are in minority. So I join with you for this proposal. --Baf09 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bob--I hope you don't mind, but I nominated your article for WP:DYK. Congratulations on producing an interesting read, Drmies (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Circassian diaspora at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Toдor Boжinov — 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I didn't write it, I just removed it from the diaspora article, as it seemed to me to stand alone as an article! BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I see that now--and as such it is not eligible for DYK. Also, I was instructed to put a "copied" template on the article to provide proper attribution per GDFL; see User_talk:Ucucha#Circassian_diaspora. Next time you copy and move information, please don't forget to provide proper attribution. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I didn't know about the copied template, although it should have been instinctually obvious to me to say something on the talk page of the new article.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bob Re your alteration to the synopsis of ep 1 of The Promise, "...Israeli clubbers are depicted as callously laughing at her plight...", could I make an observation? The clubbers are laughing because they think Erin is drunk and has passed out. This is made clear when Eliza subsequently says "Fuck off; can't you see she's epileptic?". My concern with your change is that it suggest the clubbers are laughing callously because Erin is fitting when dialogue makes it pretty clear that that is not the case. Best wishes Peter Kosminsky (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but it does look as though you are insinuating an insensitivity on the part of those Israeli clubbers. Your drama is politically loaded. What a viewer will take from it is a point about Israelis in general, their callousness.Zkharya (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

As an dramatic ploy by you, it is particularly crass, your having scarcely visited Israel, nor knowing much to anything about the Israeli club scene, or the people that do it. They are probably more clued about that kind of thing than the average British clubber, since basic medical training is part of national service. That is a particularly glaring screw up in one such as yourself, Kominsky, whose specialité are things military. You're a bit Anglo-centric, Kominsky, and a bit behind the times.Zkharya (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Peter. I get your point, and maybe it should be worded differently. (I also committed a bad and failed to uncheck "minor edit" for that rather major one.) My experience of clubbing most people wouldn't laugh at someone shaking like that; shaking is not a sign of drunkenness, so if they thought she was drunk I still think they are portrayed as callous and unpleasant. That was a scene in the drama I found problematic and unconvincing. I'll go and look at the wording now.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Bob. Much appreciated. Sorry the scene didn't work for you. Best wishes Peter Kosminsky (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bob. I see that you have added a section to The Promise page on the reaction to the programme's broadcast in France. You cite the Jewish Chronicle as your source, as you do for your addition on the OFCOM report. As far as I'm aware, their are other French sources for what occurred in France. After reading the Jewish Chronicle report, I approached Canal+ for clarification. They told me that the demonstration was smaller than the figure quoted in the JC, as borne out by the video of the event posted on the French pressure group's website, that no meeting with a senior Canal+ executive took place specifically to discuss The Promise (Le Sermont) and no special caption or logo was inserted in front of each episode to remind the audience that what followed was drama. Canal+ have a generic drama logo that was used with Le Sermont, but this is deployed in front of every drama they transmit in the Monday 9pm slot. To suggest that a special caption was generated for The Promise is wrong. I do see the difficulty here, given that none of the above is 'sourceable', but I would urge you to seek other sources for what occurred in France to corroborate what is being said by the Jewish Chronicle, which has become unremittingly hostile to the programme. Best wishes Peter Kosminsky (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I have changed the language for now, to make sure that it is clear that this is JC reportage not truth, and will look for more sources.BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good work with your edits today: well done! Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for tidying up after me!BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I obviously have to be careful how I say this, as I don't want you to be accused of being my creature or in my pocket, but do you mind if I also say well done on some very elegant editing? The piece is very accurate and balanced, as far as I can see. Thank you. Best wishes Peter Kosminsky (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bob. I noticed your dialogue on The Promise on User talk:Zkharya. You refer to the fact that quotes from the Jewish Chronicle ought to be given special prominence on the page. I was puzzled by this remark. In thinking about it, it struck me that the site contains no quotes from Palestinian sources, though several are available. Since the dialogue you are having with Zkharya pertains to the content of The Promise wikipage, could I suggest that it might be better conducted on the discussion page for that site, where other editors linked to that site can read and comment?

I haven't checked what I wrote on Z's page, but I don't think I said the JC ought to be given "special prominence", but I think that Z is correct that the JC is the main media outlet within the Jewish community in the UK, and that it is the best source on mainstream UK Jewish opinion. And I think that the UK Jewish response to the series is very relevant, because of the subject matter, so I do not see it as problematic that the JC is well represented in the article. I was making comments at Z's talk page in order to explain my edits of Z's edits, in order to defuse tension. The editing of the article, and especially z's edits, have been hot-tempered, and I think that it is best to proceed by consensus and with calmness, and I felt that a comment there was the best way to achieve that. Does that make sense?BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bob. It makes sense but doesn't really answer the points I was raising. I can understand why you feel Jewish response to The Promise - at least as expressed in the pages of the Jewish Chronicle - might be especially relevant. By the same token, and if Wikipedia is to be seen to maintain the impartiality for which it is rightly known, Palestinian response is also especially relevant. And yet editors do not seem to have rushed to include such reaction, even though it is readily available.

I asked whether discussion of content of The Promise pages, (eg your remark: P.S. Am toying with the idea of fleshing out the historical "Subjects depicted in the serial" section, which would show where the series is and where it isn't accurately reflecting real events. I've started doing that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobfrombrockley/The_Promise It would be great if you could work on this with me, and when it is in shape we can paste it in and see what happens), wouldn't be better placed on the discussion site adjacent to The Promise. This would allow other interested editors to add their thoughts. As you know, discussion of the content has already taken place outside Wikipedia on various special interest blogs. Peter Kosminsky (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree that Palestinian response is also relevant. It would be very good to have some included in the article, for the same reasons. If I have time I will work on that too - adding to my already large to do list!

On the sandbox page, yes, probably should mention on talk page. I was planning to do so after I'd done some work on it. Trouble is, I am really busy right now and don't have time, so it's just an idea I was tinkering with.BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Bobfrombrockley. You have new messages at Talk:Gerry Gable.
Message added 01:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Counterpunch Fair enough.Keith-264 (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

In searching for the Oliver Kamm article, I ran into your comments on removal of material from Atzmon article on your blog as the top return. This easily could be seen as canvassing for others to come and support your editing at the article. When I was so warned about a blog entry a few years back on some topic or other, I immediately removed the blog entry. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Carol. Sorry for slow reply; I have been away and off-line. I was not aware of the WP policy on canvassing. Having reviewed it, I am not sure whether this could be seen as canvassing. I certainly did not intend this as a message to other WP users, but rather as a repository of information deleted from Wikipedia. I will edit the post to be clear. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Better to find out on a minor issue than a major one :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can you please participate in the the discussion at Talk:Anti-fascism#.22It_refers_to_individuals_and_groups_on_the_left_of_the_political_spectrum.22? I've mentioned you and a questionable revision of yours there. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

		The Citation Barnstar
		Thank you for all the great books for the Multiculturalism article Moxy (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I have added the books digitized copies were copyright possible and add ISBN numbers See: Multiculturalism#Further reading.Moxy (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Moxy, that's really kind.BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Red Saunders (photographer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Reply

Non-content discussion
A barnstar for you! edit Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion   The Editor's Barnstar For defending Wikipedia's integrity and neutrality with a deft eye for removing biased (and ultimately irrelevant) information from the Madaya, Syria (Town) page. Shawn.carrie (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to this article. However, I edited one of them, to remove the description of some of the organisation's speakers as 'war criminals'. There may well be allegations of war crimes against them, and those allegations may even be true; but without a conviction by a court, we can't describe them that way. See the BLP policy for more information on writing about living people. Robofish (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. You're absolutely right. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are of course welcome to write an article on the Kampfbund gegen den Faschismus, but redirects to another Wikipedia project do not work. Hence I have requested speedy deletion (WP:G8). Kleuske (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I messed that up. Should have linked mentions in articles. Will try to create article stub later. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing

Please, stop reverting sourced edits made by me or other editor. Use talk pages instead of reverting good faith edits. This warning comes after your disruptive bahaviour at the Afthermath section of the Syrian Desert campaign (May–July 2017) article. Mr.User200 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please point to an example of disruptive editing on my behalf. You seem to routinely undo my edits, rarely with an explanation and never with discussion on the talk pages, and with one exception I do not revert these. I try and ask for explanations on talk pages, and you rarely if ever reply. In the example you point to, I flagged a section with literally one source with the one source template. You undid that with no explanation whatsoever. I asked for an explanation but instead you reverted me. Can I remind you of some Wikipedia policies: (1) "A single source is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. By finding multiple independent sources, the reliability of the encyclopedia is improved." When a section or page relies largely or entirely on a single source, that's a problem, hence my use of the {{One source}} tag. To remove that tag, you either need to provide additional sources or use the talk pages to provide a really good justification. (2) When the single source is less than fully reliable (see WP:RS) that's a particular problem. Al-Masdar has been discussed numerous times on the RS noticeboard; the overwhelming consensus is that it is not a reliable source, and that it is absolutely not a reliable single source for controversial claims. I think it is especially wrong to use it as a source for opposition actions, as it is reliant for its own reporting on government military sources. Uses of this single source. Rather than removing claims sourced to this single unreliable source, I have used the {{better source}} tag. To remove that tag, you either need to provide a better source or a really good justification why the source is good enough. (3) As per WP:OWN, no individual editor owns an article. You may have put an admirable amount of effort into the Timeline articles, but they are not your personal property: "Removing warnings like {{complex}}, {{cleanup}} or {{RfD}} just because you think a page is yours is not right. No matter who you are, you must follow our rules and discuss problems with others." Please abide by this WP policy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing

Please, stop reverting sourced edits made by me or other editor. This second warning comes after your disruptive bahaviour at a section of the Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (May–August 2017) article.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Mr.User200: I have no idea which edits you see as disruptive. Instead of putting these warnings on my page, could you please respond to my comments above, or my comments on the talk pages where we both edit? I know you are quite new to Wikipedia and have had lots of experiences already of disruptive edit warnings, but Wikipedia works by consensus, which is why I use edit summaries and talk pages to discuss edits, and not by threats. Please constructively engage in discussion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Its ok mate. One reason we are all here for is to help eachother. :) EkoGraf (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The source https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-chemicalweapons-idUSKBN15S1W7 about the UN-OPCW report is investigating the entire Syrian Civil War, not the Battle of Aleppo.

Thanks Kimo2255. If you think that's relevant, maybe take discussion to Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016) talk page. The Reuters article is about an HRW report finding "Government helicopters dropped chlorine bombs “in residential areas in Aleppo on at least eight occasions between November 17 and December 13, 2016”. OPCW is mentioned briefly - explicitly saying they didn't comment on the HRW report. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, though, for the extra citations. I have left the VOA one (I think probably the most reliable) in the lede, and moved the others to the relevant section. I might work on that relevant section as it is a bit messy at the moment.BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain how I misread the report? Chickenhero (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)chickenheroReply

It is not a report; it is an opinion piece (it is clearly flagged as such on the Newsweek page). The opinion piece is by someone who has never previously written for any real media outlet[3], and Newsweek, in their current dysfunctionality, clearly didn't check it. If you look at the transcript of the Mattis briefing, widely available, Mattis actually didn't say anything that translates into the text you inserted into the WP article. See e.g. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/02/09/newsweek-engages-easily-debunkable-syria-chemical-weapon-trutherism-help-ian-wilkie/ BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Now explain how he miswrote the report. Spamming page after page with "Assad didn't gas it's people" is appallingly poor grammar. The headline is right there in the link; "Assad didn't gas his people". (a link he didn't even fill in correctly). He should read WP:CIR & WP:CIV, especially before he goes haranguing people, who have rightfully reverted him, on their talk pages, when his own talk page states; "'F off if you want to edit here". (pfft!) Good catch, Bob. - ^theWOLFchild 21:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Reply

Where have I ever lecture anyone in an aggressively manner. User:Thewolfchild — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenhero (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

You might find this useful. FYI Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Some of the sources I am reading regarding the views of those who alleged the existence of "Anti-Orthodoxy" connect those views to claims of Judeo-Masonic worldwide conspiracies, peppered with references to the Elders of Zion. I think this relevant but at the same time I'm not sure I want to give oxygen to this stuff. I was interested in hearing what you thought on this matter. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

This absolutely does not surprise me. I agree with you that it is relevant and that it is dangerous to give oxygen - I think I would err on the side of not giving oxygen here. I think this is one of the reasons it'd be much better to try to stop WP using the term and use a more neutral term like "Persecution of..." BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough-- thanks for your input. I've posted a move request with ref to the AfD.--Calthinus (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also wanted to mention -- hope it's not weird -- I think your blog is awesome man and I will definitely end up using it as a resource some time for political discussions. Great work. --Calthinus (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wow! Thanks. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

You recently participated in an AfD discussion for the Anti-Orthodoxy article here. A request to move (retitle) that article is currently under discussion here if you'd care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  05:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Content you added to the above articles appears to have been copied from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-investigator/syria-investigator-del-ponte-signs-off-with-a-sting-idUSKCN1BT29Q. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. I have paraphrased the material so it complies with our copyright policy. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I thought I paraphrased sufficiently, but really appreciate you doing so. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

And for fixing the ref formating I messed up! BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you revert an IP's edit and revert back the page to this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=849690045.Alhanuty (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

So "Bob" now we have a definition via ArbCom about "outing" will you be doing anything about your intentional linking of personal information, which hadn't been disclosed on here? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Proposed_decision#Community_reminded --RebeccaSaid (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Rebecca, If I outed you by quoting your tweet, I sincerely apologise. It was not my intention. I do not believe I disclosed personal information about you, as I do not have any, and I don't believe I sought out or identified a link (I'm not really sure what that means), but I realise I was wrong to effectively post something about your off-wiki activity by quoting what I believed to be your tweet about the ArbCom case, even though your userpage links to an off-wiki resource associated with the Twitter account I quoted, and that this could be interpreted as constituting "outing" in the sense defined in the proposed decision. I am sorry, and hope it has not caused you any upset. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you recently amended the white helmets page to say that “422 people - 98 White Helmet volunteers and their family members - to Jordan“. I can’t find any mention to the number 98 in the source provided. It initially says “Hundreds of Syrian “White Helmet” rescue workers and their families” and later mentions 422 people. Another source says

“422 White Helmets volunteers were evacuated” - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hundreds-of-syrian-white-helmets-evacuated-to-jordan-through-israel-2018-07-22/

A google search using the number 98 does bring up a few sources which mention that, of the 422 rescued, 98 were white helmet volunteers. These sources seem to suggest that the remaining 324 were family members of the 98 white helmets.

If you want to keep the 98 figure in the article I think you will need to change the source provided. I also think the statement “98 White Helmet volunteers and their family members” has some ambiguity. Is the 98 referring to just the white helmets or to the “white helmets and their family members”. Can you make it clearer?

Burrobert 19:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

sorry for the slow reply. Been offline. Will look. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Lotsof sources are clear: Telegraph “In the end, 98 White Helmet volunteers and 324 family members made it out, only half of those who signed up for evacuation.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/24/white-helmets-rescuers-stuck-syria-fear-regime-reprisals-colleagues/ Guardian: “He said on Sunday that 422 people were rescued, including 98 White Helmets. As many as 800 others did not manage to escape or chose not to do so.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/22/israel-evacuates-800-white-helmets-in-face-of-syria-advance CBC: “In the raging war zone that is southwestern Syria, 98 White Helmets — members of a volunteer rescue organization also known as the Syrian Civil Defence — brought their spouses, children and a personal bag each. A total of 421 people massed at two collection points where they were to reach freedom in Jordan. But by the time they reached safety, they were 422. One woman went into labour on the journey. Her son, Nairouz, came into the world just short of the Syria-Israel border.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-white-helmets-escaped-syria-1.4758712

See WP:AN#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 closed. I've reverted the account and the IP and added ECP. Before the new decision I couldn't have done that. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Bob, long time, hope all is well in these interesting times. Wanted to let you know Santasa99 has been working hard to bring Bosnian genocide denial up to GA. Since I'm aware you know some relevant cases and care about the matter [4] [5], perhaps I thought you might take an interest in the contributing. If not, I understand. Cheers! --Calthinus (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I posted on Talk for Anti-Racist Action about undoing the June 2020 rewrite, which is based on a report on a far-Right blog, includes many improperly cited claims, and names several individuals as being part of Torch Antifa chapters without evidence. Would be great to have your thoughts on this proposed change. Thanks. GNO23 (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you recently created a Synthesis that had asked for the link that asked exactly where Zenz's work was stated to be sourced to Istiqlal TV.

I know Zenz used numbers or accounting figures that actually came from exile media Istiqal internet TV, to back his entire estimate as well as also citing US-funded Radio Free Asia who claimed to use cold-calling to get their proof. But it's really easy to see the conflict of interest there and why western mainstream media shy away from reporting that actual fact. Hence I think that's why Japan's Newsweek omitted his name and mainstream western articles don't "usually" mention the exile group.

I honestly learned that fact from GrayZone and it doesn't take a genius to know that Japan Newsweek is using the very same document and figures that Adrian also presented to the world. But western media seem to not want to mention it. So really hard to get sources and Grayzoine is not allowed on Wikipedia despite nothing they wrote was non-factual.

https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-uyghurs-problems-claims-us-ngo-researcher/

But you make a semi-fair point that we need a solid source that EXPLICITLY show the connection so I went to do some extra digging and believe me, after a LONG WHILE - approx almost an hour of searching on google, finally found 2 sources that can back it up. And only afterward, I have removed your "Synthesis" and replaced it with the 2 sources that explicitly mention Istiqal and japan Newsweek and them publishing the exile org media report that Adrian used to back his estimates.

The reason I am writing to you is more a professional courtesy that I have removed your Synthesis and added the sources that you had wanted to see and to let you know that as you seem interested in the topic. You can feel free to review and check up on it if you want. - https://merics.org/en/analysis/where-did-one-million-figure-detentions-xinjiangs-camps-come + https://edtimes.in/for-incompetent-expert-adrian-zenz-benefits-are-more-important-than-truth/ MangoTareeface9 (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks MangoTareeface9. I appreciate the courtesy. I'll review it properly later, but it certainly looks like you have addressed the synthesis issue, and the MERICS source is reliable. On Grayzone, read this critique from (I believe) a reliable source, which builds on the MERICS piece: https://chinalawandpolicy.com/2020/01/05/when-journalism-is-not-journalism-the-grayzones-faulty-analysis-of-what-is-happening-in-xinjiang/ And this by a veteran journalist is probably not a reliable source and is polemical, but explains some of the wider problems with Grayzone: https://medium.com/muros-invisibles/enter-the-dragon-b8087398eaa0 BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help editing Draft:Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist). I really appreciate the detail that you added. Do you feel that the article is good enough to be moved into the main-space yet? I appreciate that one must employ maximum caution when editing a biographical article about a controversial living person. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've never taken a page from draft to mainspace before and am not fully versed in BLP issues relating to legal cases, but to me the article feels robust enough: there are enough sources that cover him to suggest notability and everything in the article is reliably sourced. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is done. Thank you for your excellent contributions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have added a section as you suggested, regarding the shooting of Nicola Lumsden in 1993. Please feel free to improve the page as you see fit. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bob, did you see the recent changes to the related article, Draft:Kate_Shemirani. She has been the subject of articles in both The Times and Jewish Chronicle this week. I feel that this subject now passes our notability guidelines for biographical articles. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you because of your edits at the Shemirani article, then saw on your user page that you're more interested in politics than I am.  Since it even mentioned left politics, I just wanted to point at The Left (North Macedonia), in case it's an article you would like to improve. I also posted a concern at its talk page recently (that may or may not be valid). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks PaleoNeonate. Will look. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey Bob, would you be interested in participating in a group that has a particular interest in observing the activities of Shemirani and Steele. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sure BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I appreciated you thoughtful response here, and I notice that you're interested in both Judaism and the left. You might find this organization worth thinking about in light of that. Jlevi (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bob, just a quick one to inform you: I accidentally removed some of your content from this edit, I have however added it back, but it may be worth you giving it the once-over. Alssa1 (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks Alssa1. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

You made improvements to the Anti Serb article, is the IP wromg about imposing present tense for a past event? Here is my revert [diff]OyMosby (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi BobFromBrockley, I thought that you might be interested to know that you are mentioned (briefly, on page 13, in the section "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom) in this new blog post that someone sent me. I'm not familiar with the blog's author or the WP articles and editors that he accuses of bias, so I've no idea how justifiable his claims are. Best wishes for the New Year! JezGrove (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks JezGrove for letting me know! BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

You're very welcome! JezGrove (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

As you are looking into Spiked etc., I thought I would mention this resource, though I expect you are aware of it. [[6]] [[7]] Jontel (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Jontel! BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Swiss women Marxists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Grnrchst (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey to stop the back and forth I created a dispute resolution here. [8] 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Syrian presidential election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kurdish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

|}

Dear Bob, kindly review Draft:Sacha_Stone. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your edits. I'm usually in Brockley most Fridays and every other weekend, so please let me know if you'd be happy for me to buy you a drink. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm intending to get back to the draft and look for more sources. I think the Medium post counts as an expert blog but might be questioned, and discogs would benefit from RS verification, for example. But I think it's a really worthwhile project and great you have managed to produce a great draft Salimfadhley. Yes, let's meet in Brockley as normality returns! BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, would you happen to have the exact text from the telegraph article that led to you adding the sentence beginning "However,..." at the end of the criticism section? As it is behind a paywall I have no access to it and I'm a little worried that there might be OR, it suggests a contradiction between the complainants and Cathcart and the IPSO response which would need to be stated in the article itself to be warranted (if we can accept the article as neutral).

Also, a notification on my talk page, and that of DeltaSnowQueen would have been correct etiquette when taking this case to the NPOV noticeboard.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've just seen your edit summary re this, so I think I understand. If you look at the way IPSO handles complaints, for a complaint to be upheld there must be a breach or breaches of the IPSO code. The case of Audrey White consisted of one upheld complaint (paragraph 36) but 6 breaches of the editorial code (paragraphs 24-29). There is no contradiction between the Telegraph story and that of Cathcart. --Boynamedsue (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Boynamedsue, you're absolutely right I should have pinged you when I took this to NPOV. Apologies for that. I did mention it on the article talk page, so thought that was sufficient, but was remiss not to inform you. I'll come back later on the Telegraph issue once I've seen if I can access the Telegraph article again. Might be sensible to do that on the article talk page if you don't mind me copying this over? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Response here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Jewish_Chronicle#Telegraph_comment_on_libel The Telegraph doesn't say Cathcart was wrong about 28, but does say the letter was. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya

added a link pointing to Richard Becker

Ray McGovern

added a link pointing to William Binney

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Becker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Black Marxists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 16:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Bowie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Counterpunch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ida B. Wells, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Gorst.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Progressive Socialist Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Hanna.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Rudolf Rocker

added a link pointing to New York

World Socialist Web Site

added a link pointing to Counterpunch

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I wanted to leave you a message and let you know I certainly wasn't trying to attack you in the AfD earlier. They way I typed it made it seem a little snarky but I didn't mean it that way. Just wanted to apologize and thank you for the argument you made for it, as it was helpful for me to understand it a little better. Other editors didn't seem to want to make arguments based on merit so it's refreshing to see. Thanks again! Spf121188 (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

No worries at all Spf121188, and I appreciate this message! BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think you posted in the wrong section Shrike (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh, thank you. I have never posted on this sort of noticeboard before. I'll try and correct! BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused! Where should I have posted Shrike? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry It was my mistake I have thought you posted in wrong thread Shrike (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

In the midst of the current discussion, with there being a very obvious consensus against deprecation currently, that strikes me as improper. nableezy - 18:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

You have many times said that nobody says it is a generally reliable source and that we only use it when citing real experts. I've not deleted anything, just flagged the source, flagged lack of secondary sources, or replaced with better sourcing of the same text. Which of my edits do you think is specifically improper? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I dont think any specific edit is at fault, it just appears to be a continuation of imposing a fait accompli on this source, and the improper bit is depending on an RFC that by nearly every reading is so flawed by the socking that it is invalid while the current RFC shows a lopsided consensus against the claim that CP should be deprecated. I dont have a problem replacing Fisk links in CP with Indy links where they exist, it just as a whole looks like a continuation to the, imo, nonsense that started this whole mess. nableezy - 18:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I was curious about what we’re still using CP for. I reviewed about ten uses and left about half of them as I saw they were probably due. About half of them looked easily improvable so I did some minor editing. I used the phrase “unreliable/deprecated” in case the consensus for deprecated isn’t sustained, but as I said nobody is calling it generally reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, at the conclusion of the RFC if it does not stand I'd assume you may expect to see many more than 10 of the 1500 or so removals that took place over the last weeks reversed. nableezy - 20:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok! I’m sure we’ll be discussing that then, along with other editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, did you really mean to remove so many comments from other editors in this edit? Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

SVTCobra OMG no- no idea how that happened!! BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Susan Lindauer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Twin Towers.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

	恭喜发财！
Happy Chinese New Year!

🐯🐯🐯 — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bobfrombrockley . I noticed that you recently used mediabiasfactcheck.com as a source in Ruptly. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN and WP:RSP is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for such information. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.--Hipal (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Hipal. I assumed it was noteworthy in a reception section, but I see that it is not used in that way in any other similar articles. No problem for removing and thank you for the courtesy of this note. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for that change. I was just wondering if you have a reference for that? I have page-watchers who really want that symbol to prove that the group is Neo-Nazi because they think the Nazis invented the swaztika, so I expect a bunch of ad hominem over the change Elinruby (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

No I don't actually. I should add a cn tag. But the term used previously had no source either and didn't seem to correspond to anything in the body. Feel free to revert or question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've closed an open-ended {{collapse top}} template up above, sorry if you wanted it that way. nableezy - 23:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Nableezy. Appreciate it! BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Bob,

I started a talk page discussion on how this individual is categorized as there seems to be an edit war going on about it that has resulted in page protection. Please weigh in if you have an opinion about this categorization feud. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patrick Deneen (author), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page H21.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted you to feel seen. Also, re DW: the consensus is it’s the police in Belarus over at the Reliable Sources notice board. Elinruby (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

EnlightenmentNow1792, please read WP:AGF, WP:BLUDGEON and WP:CONSENSUS and have a look at my talk page comments. I have consistently argued that the preponderance of RSs do not support "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice. Re the diff you link above, I simply pasted in the relevant quote, as it is paywalled. The relevant quote suggests to me that this is not a super-strong source. But Wikipedia proceeds by consensus. We need a new RfC to change the agreed wording in the lead. Concentrating your energy on collaboratively contributing to that discussion is the best way to strengthen the page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

This edit is not to "enhance" the source but to make transparent what it says so its inclusion can be debated with more knowledge. Re this edit, I moved The Nation out of the lead as a source for a fact and into the body as a source for an opinion and added an inline undue tag. It is an opinion piece, so it's inclusion is dependent on WP:DUEWEIGHT. This edit removes "neo-Nazi" which is not the description on the party's page and uses "far right" which is well sourced on its page; I don't see why that's controversial, especially if you think we don't need a hundred "neo-Nazis" in the lead. This edit does not restore "neo-Nazi" which was already there; it removes the redundant qualifier "extreme right" which was not ordained by the RfC. Once again, my "preferred version" of the article is one that does not say "is anti-Nazi" in wikivoice and which is based on the preponderance of RSs which, as you say, would give a more nuanced view. But to reach that, unilaterally going against consensus is not the best route. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yanno...@EnlightenmentNow1792: you are attacking one of two people with a shot at mediating this mess to an acceptable level. I am pretty sure the edits you are taking issue with were made in response to the consensus at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. No, they aren't enough, but they do move the article in the right direction.Elinruby (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Elinruby: you're 100% right. After reviewing the Talk Page history, in my feverish attempts to rescue the article itself from absurdity, I actually confused BobFromBrockley's edits and intentions with another editor. I wholeheartedly apologize Bob, still new to this game, and I certainly have no intention of entering the article space of a controversial topic "in the news" again. Too much stress, and too little oversight from admins - in fact, zero from my period of embroilment - who have even the most basic regard for WP:Policy as it applies to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, it's Bugs from twitter, find Wikipedia massively difficult to use but glad to see someone I know 😀 Fourdots2 (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks , tbh I find this hard to use with all the HTML formatting etc but I see they have made it a bit more user friendly Fourdots2 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

[9] Was probably not the best way to go about this. Tagging sources like this is not productive to reaching consensus or being collegial to all sides of this dispute. Don't unilaterally declare that the authors don't have expertise. That's your opinion and you have not provided RSes or consensus to back up that opinion. Until you do, we shouldn't smear the source. Overall, tagging every source you dislike with "passing mention" is probably counter-productive to your goals, as it creates the appearance of WP:BLUDGEONing. Better to provide more reputable sources which support your argument. At the same time, I understand your concern about not having tons of passing mention sources. However, it should be relatively easy to find lots of sources which support "former", many more than are currently listed! That's the work that will better support your goals. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the advice. I feel “passing mention” is objective but expertise is, indeed, my opinion. Will revert. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh I see you’ve already fixed. Thanks! I really appreciate your work on this Shibbolethink. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Of course :) And thank you for your help and input, it definitely brings it closer to NPOV!! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. 175.156.145.10 (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Far-right politics in Ukraine

added a link pointing to National Democratic Party

Semiotic square

added a link pointing to Implication

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just a notice that the same small group of editors are continuing disruptive tag-team editing related to Russian far-right nationalists on the articles Donetsk People's Republic and Russian separatist forces in Donbas, including deletion of references. I'm considering taking the issue to the Administrators noticeboard. ~Asarlaí 14:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Far-right politics in Ukraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Democratic Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Transparent POV editing on your part, as I said in my previous edit summary. You deleted ArabNews opinion because you didntlikeit as it took a contrary view. Then you claimed ArabNews was neither here nor there when I restored it. And now you have changed your mind and decided it is a good source after all because it might appear to support the Japan agency view but only provided that its opinion of the subject matter is not given, in other words you want to misrepresent the opinion of ArabNews. If the subject matter is notable, then you should have no trouble finding a different source supporting it. Selfstudier (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don’t understand what your issue with this is. The secondary source, which is reliable, was there as a secondary source to show the noteworthiness of the Japanese government decision. Somebody edited it to highlight/cherrypick the newspaper’s opinion of the regiment, which made our text POV. I edited this to leave in the use of the words “knee-jerk reaction”, which described the Japanese government decision, but ensuring that we accurately report that decision. What I thought was neither here nor there was the source’s opinion about the regiment. We know the Japanese government decision is noteworthy because there is a secondary source that shows this, but that secondary source’s opinion is not in itself noteworthy. There is no reason to find an alternative secondary source because we have a perfectly decent one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking a look, I've got a book by Michael Colborne and it seems to me that would be quite useful on the 'Azov movement' side of things if that article gets made :) Fourdots2 (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Seems to me there's like 3 people who don't want it changed so they are not going to change it 🤔 Fourdots2 (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Anti-fascist organizations in Ukraine indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Sakwa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bobfrombrockley, I saw questionable, but seemingly well sourced, informations in the article Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. When I looked it up, it was a misrepresentation of the source and it not looks like an accident. A look into the history shows you as the editor. I made a thread at the Admin noticeboard to discuss this case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. 2001:A62:472:9C01:593:6819:19F1:13FD (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

A lot of great sources, but they will not be considered unless they are on the actual article page. A POV warrior, has been deleting this sources on the talk page. I strongly suggest you add these articles to the article page. 666hopedieslast (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Alina_Lipp 666hopedieslast (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

) BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to mention that to the extent of my understanding you are right about where it is SYNTH and were it would not be. It’s just not a concept on which I feel comfortable opining. And the massive wrongness of the BLP problems and misunderstanding of RS were simply easier for me to point out. Thanks for speaking up on that article though. Elinruby (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

An article you helped edit, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gonzalo_Lira_(3rd_nomination) is up for deletion. john (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Avoiding hagiography. The discussion is about the topic Robert Fisk. Thank you. Nutez (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please use correct citations and follow dmy dates format in your edits. Egeymi (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Could you please correct the date format and other parameters in the references you have inserted to the article.--Egeymi (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help Egeymi. Which dates and parameters are wrong? I've been using citer.toolforge.org so it should be correct. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

you are using 2022-09-23 format, but there 23 September 2022 format is used.--Egeymi (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see. I can correct that. Which other parameter are incorrect Egeymi? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, there is not any other incorrect parameter. Maybe you can use the full title of the source. --Egeymi (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Instead of putting unnecessary wls as see also, you may consider to correct date formats in the references.--Egeymi (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused. The See also links were not already in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is a wl for Al Manar in the article, but there is no for PressTV but I'm not sure it is necessary put it as a see also link.--Egeymi (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

You're right about Al Manar. I searched with a dash, as in its article name. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palagummi Sainath, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ivan Katchanovski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Foster.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Antifascist Committee of Ukraine

added a link pointing to C14

Ivan Katchanovski

added a link pointing to Svoboda

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2022 Conservative Party leadership election.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Gonzalo Lira requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 14:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just to thank you for the effort you are making in addressing my arguments/edits. I was perhaps unfair in being cantankerous. Apart from my ratbag nature, I think it fair to say frustration can kick in when one's flat out like a thirsty lizard, with no water within tongue reach. I had run up a long list of all of your edits with replies, for over an hour, but pressed the wrong button, wiped it out, and so, hit the fart sack. I was delighted to see this morning that you undertook valuable time to address all points.

I've never had problems with people who disagree with me about fundamenetals, and I respect those of them that put in a solid effort, as you, a fine editor, do. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I ran out of time to respond to all your points. Will return when I can BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

No hurry. If it's also sunny there, and Sunday, there are also other things to do in life. I myself must spend most of the day copyediting a friend's philosophical paper, since he must deliver it in a few days and I've been distracted for a month by other stuff. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Bob, because you're Ashkenazic and you've edited the "Ashkenazi-Khazar theories" section of the main Khazars entry today, you might wish to weigh in on the current "Request new section to discuss Brook 2022 and later studies that confirm or disconfirm it" (related to genetic evidence) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry#Request_new_section_to_discuss_Brook_2022_and_later_studies_that_confirm_or_disconfirm_it which relates to multiple currently undiscussed peer-reviewed sources that could be summarized in some manner on the page Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, which has restricted-access for editing. Only three longtime Wikipedia editors have responded with their opinions thus far. 2600:1000:B116:9614:E9BD:D543:8D72:3A4F (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 1978), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polytechnic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bob - You might be interested in the dispute that has developed over the legitimacy of a quotation by film director Darin J. Sallam, included in the Laurier article. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/12/20/pkmm-d20.html

The WSWs source has been deemed factually unreliable: "There is no consensus as to whether WSWS itself is reliable for facts" The identical quote was also provided in an article from The Hollywood Reporter. The WSWS ref was deleted and replaced with the HR source. My effort to maintain both sources was repeatedly reverted. The editor who performed most of the reverts wrote in the Talk section:

"I don't trust WSWS. I've found them to spread disinformation and promote Russian interests. But this is a ref for a quote from the filmmakers. Now, those of you very skeptical of WSWS might think they're making it up. But why the hell are we having this discussion when we can just delete the WSWS ref and leave the THR ref? Heavy Water (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will now be bold and delete the WSWS ref in favor of the THR ref. Heavy Water (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

As you can see, Bob, there was no effort to establish that WSWS "spreads disinformation" or "promotes Russian interests."

I have used WSWS sources in the past without any significant opposition. What gives? CerroFerro (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Bob, thank you for your edits today regarding what kind of an academic various sources are.

I prefer to do the same, but have often found that there is resistance to attempts to include things like, "Political Scientist" or "Professor of X." As a result, I have tended to write "academic" so as not to invite the disagreement.

Are there any specific policies you have in mind that support your approach? I'd like to adopt it and would like to be able to respond to those who prefer the barebones "academic" JArthur1984 (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

) JArthur1984 I don't know if there are specific policies on this (except maybe MOS:CREDENTIAL), but it seems obvious to me that precision is better than vagueness. A philosopher, a sociologist and a chemist might all be academics but wouldn't be equally noteworthy to cite in relation to a chemical weapon attack. (And of course some scholarly experts might not actually be academics: research scientists can work in non-academic labs, for instance.)

BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I did not know of a specific policy either. But I like your summation that precision is necessarily better than vagueness. I suspect that editors who prefer "academic" think that listing a specialty is a form of "bolstering" or "hedging." But as far as I'm concerned that just means the facts speak for themselves...

Although this is a side note and not a disagreement about the substance of an edit, I would encourage you not to view Yaffe as fringe. Yaffe has at least one text published by Yale University Press. She's been a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics. She is a lecturer at University of Glasgow. Her work is excellently cited and well-reasoned.

But, as I said, I offer this as food for thought, not a disagreement with your edit.

Thanks for your time and perspective on my question. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Fringe probably too strong. She's active in the Revolutionary Communist Group (UK), one of the tiniest left micro-parties in the UK, and early in the pandemic was responsible for promoting mild vaccine disinformation as part of her PR campaign for the Cuban government. But she does get quite a lot of citations for her Che book. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Another pair of eyes would be appreciated at Srpska: The Struggle for Freedom if you have the stomach. IPs and others are trying to make/break the film's WP coverage. Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can you point me to the consensus that MEM is WP:GUNREL? Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you actually meant that it was undue because opinion (should have been attributed), that's OK. Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have the Wikipedia extension on that makes GUNREL cites red, and it flashed red. But it's not always accurate - I'll have a look. Apologies if I was hasty. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

So Selfstudier it looks like I might've been hasty. I'd forgotten this but I've tried to get a sense of a clear consensus before: in 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Archive_5#Middle_East_Monitor and 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Archive_7#Middle_East_Monitor Definitely there isn't consensus it's reliable, but not sure how generally unreliable it is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Probably a "2" so attribution if it might be controversial. Anyway, it was an opinion so taking it out was the right thing to do in that case. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chipo Chung, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuffield Theatre.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

You made that redirect, but it contains a typo ("pipleline"). I made and used Sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline instead, and now the old page is orphaned. How did that fast-delete thing work again? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - I'll try to work it out! BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asiatic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Rovics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Barrett.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Ross (blogger), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ross (blogger) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Project Censored, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carl Jensen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Escape From New York: The Official Story of the Film#Notability's talk page. Best — MY, OH, MY! 09:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thx BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Bobfrombrockley: How are you? I've posted your article in to mainspace. Great wee article, but it needs the bibliography section expanded so we can see what books he has written. This is a major American author of the 20th century. scope_creep^Talk 11:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The party does have elements of fascism, but some articles like the rss. Should the categories be restored? Firekong1 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have no specific objection (or expertise) but I think the party's article needs to establish this, with sources, in the body before it ought to be in the categories, per WP:CATV. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Of course. I'll do my best to find sources describing them as such. Thank you for letting me know. Firekong1 (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

More socks on there than a millipede. I think I got rid of the worst of the cruft, but could you give the article a once over? Nangaf (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

sure BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply