Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:22, 18 March 2007

Userboxes This user sleeps, but not for predictable amounts of time. This user is a WikiFairy. CUTF This user is a member of the Cleanup Taskforce. Their desk is located here. This user was a member of the inactive League of Copyeditors.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

OK, so what is the punishment? First, the notion of a law restricting the activities of animals by themselves is absurd. Second, if that town did pass such a lamebrained law, there has to be a penalty or enforcement factor. If it's not frying the chicken, then what is it? Putting it in a cage and forcing it to lay eggs against its will? "Vandalism"? Gimme a break. The article is about a joke. Wahkeenah 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I got a laugh out of it too. I probably overreacted by labeling it as vandalism -- I know you weren't meaning any harm. And actually, if you simply prefix it with "Presumably", I'm sure it will stay. But so far as I can tell, the law is real; however, just to make sure, I asked the operator of www.dumblaws.com to find out for sure. He and I went to school together (well, we went to the same school), so I should get an answer soon. --Otheus 14:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good advice, although "presumably" might get zapped by someone else as "speculation" or "original research".

And presumably, you wouldn't want to run a-fowl of some high-minded editor! --Otheus 15:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I really am curious to know what the "penalty" against the chicken is, for breaking this law. My guess is that the law itself is a joke that someone slipped through. Wahkeenah 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've appended your question to my contact. Hopefully he can research the answer soon enough.

Yes, egg him on. OK, endless chicken-related puns and other jokes are now coming to mind. Somewhere, Jo Anne Worley's ears are burning. :) Wahkeenah 15:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

–

Humanistic Sociology Page Iterations

Hi Otheus You tagged my contribution to the Humanistic Sociology page on 02/07. I know what you mean by style, voice ect., I understand that the article has a long way to go and possibly sails close to NPOV. I would like to see the article improved. I will read the style/edit guide and try and change the article to reflect the guide ect.. Also I am happy to completely remove the article and let someone else write it. As to spelling I just use word’s spellchecker. Maybe as a IT person you know of a better spell checker. As to grammar I admit my grammar is poor. Kindest Regards Nigel Nigel Savage 03:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to input

Thanks for your quick response. I will address the "both sides show bias" NPOV issue with an edit. I will also rewrite the intro to incorporate the opening sentence. I hope more people will work on the article and improve it. I am based in Australia from the UK. For some reason I have a fascination with Polish history. I studied Humanistic Sociology at Uni with a lecturer who studied under Ossowski. I have put this mark-up into your talk just so I can dialogue with you re future edits, your input is appreciated Nigel Savage 06:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again otheus, I have just completed a quick edit incorporating the new opening sentence into the main intro. I will address the NPOV points soon. Yours in an endless loop of wiki co-operation Actually the edit you made to the identified NPOV is fine. Much work to do thanks for your input. Best of luck otheus with the job situation, I have worked as a programmer so I know what you are facing it can be a ruthless industry to work inNigel Savage 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Tensioner, heave and motioncompensator.

And Otheus, did you receive the information I sent to you by mail? I have been thinking about what is a tensioner and what is a heave or motioncompensator. I think I found the difference. A tensioner makes a real connection between the floating object and the shore or the other ship or the sea bottom. The motion compensator is in contact with the bottom, shore etc, but is not really for 100 % connected. One want to maintain a constant contactforce of the drill bit etc in relation to the seabottom. For these reasons a heave and motion compensator is more accurate than just a tensioner where the forceincrease is not of that interest. Also a heavecompensator on board of a trailing hopperdredge follows the same principle. In fact a tensioner is not a spring, but is an apparatus with a spring build in. Do you understand what I mean? Jeff 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I did :) It's a lot of material, yesterday was valentine's day, oh, and I just found out yesterday that I'm out of a job in a month, so you can understand why I'm a bit late getting to this :) --Otheus 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"philosophy"

Oh no, is he still doing it? I stopped paying attention days ago. — coelacan talk — 01:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, all his spam seems to be from the 17th. How many years is that in WikiTime?

The weird thing is I never touched his article before he spammed me. I think he just picked me out of a hat. — coelacan talk — 01:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For Otheus

1)Samir was a very new user of wikipedia. He made mistakes in his several steps.

2)He only got scholarship for 12 courses at harvard in honor of a dead indian professor, and no further courses were offered from harvard for anyone after those 12. He did not have the money to pay and study.

3) Samir does not know why he was born on the day of his birth day cause he never wrote his fate, same was the case of finding the funaral date of K-R.

4) Samir had to struggle till now by pleading and begging, cause he is a genuine citizen of Bangladesh where sometimes human feel happy to be alive let alone with honor and dignity and scopes for free education.

5) Finally this article is too young in the science to have a name for itself or tagged with others. Yes it can well be linked with those but it has no direct relation with aging or dying situations. Rather it tells you whether you like it or not, you know that you will die someday though you may be young and healthy now and I will never believe that one accepts this truth about uncertainity and ceassing criteria of life very gladly unless he does not understand death or sadly he may be psychologically unhealthy. So we need to pull this thorn out of our throat, because, we can't pull death out, even when we are young and healthy.

Ofcourse, I applaud you for the final comments you made for Dr. Samir and I belive he would like it.

Regards

Samir himself203.112.199.125 09:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Aw, thanks!

Thanks very much for the compliment and the barnstar! The Hatto story is certainly fascinating. It's good to see so many editors working to keep pace with developments! -- Perodicticus 12:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

James K. Polk

Hi, the place to request article protection is WP:RFP - however at this stage I dont feel its warranted... I'll keep an eye out tho, and let me know if it continues :) Glen 09:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and compared to articles like Lil Chris, I guess it's not that much of an issue. Are there any bots out there which do somke kind of semantic or traffic analysis which can alert vandal patrollers? If not, why not ;) --Otheus 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth

Hi Otheus : Sometimes truth is dificult to grasp because there is an intrinsecal dificulty (a problem of paradigm like pre-Einstein observation of the predecession of Venus, an specially complicated issue like in quantic observation of interference pattern for a single electron, a strongly ideologized discussion like in who owns Palestine, a strongly partisan discussion like Irak invasion, or a lack of evidence like in who won the battle of Kadesh, etc...) but what are here speaking about is a police investigation about 191 people killed. So someone did it and it is posible to show who was. It is not a matter of opinions but a matter of opinions sustained by proofs because someone did it. We have in one side a 90 000 pages indictement and in the other vague and self contradictory insinuations that have been refuted in the most pure Popperian way.

If the DNA of some people is found in the place of events, if these people are caught with explosive identical to the explosive used, if these people has a reason for doing, if they are recognized by witnesses, etc... and -more important for wikipedia- if ALL the relevant sources in the world except ONE, all the experts in terrorism, all the intelligence services, all the world class media, etc... say something and a single newspaper who has been caught fabricating proofs and the proofs this newspaper has fabricated are the only ones that exist say otherwise, then there is no dificulty for seeing where is the truth with overwhilming probability and -more important for wikipedia- how the artcile must be organized and how the weight and emphasis must be atributed.

It is epistemologically clear that is imposible to proof that the WTC towers were not demolished by explosives but is equally clear that this hypotesis fits with reality in a more conflicting way than the accepted truth.

I have not come here to discuss Popperianism but to warn people who are not familiar with this issue about the tactics of some people who in Spain are discredited but here can found a niche for their fantasies. It is OK for me if English wikipedia wants to give these people the benefit of the doubt but is clear to me that the epistemological reason to give them so, forces to state the million times more probable truth in main article and the counterintuitive minoriary imposible to source with world class media sources, a sub-article.

We cannot know if the world has been created three minutes ago but we can agree that this is less probable than it existing at least for a week or more since then is easier to understand why all of us has recalls for this extended period. And in this way is posible to establish a hierarchy in the the different hypotesis.

In my opinion wikipedia must base on reliable sources to establish such hierarchy and El Mundo ideas are well down in the ladder if you look at what the sources normally used here say about them (basically nothing).

I am also an amateur epistemologist and I love this kind of conversation (I love Koyre, Lakatus, Bunge and certainly Khun) but we cannot accept that some criminals who killed 191 innocents are freed while the policemen who found them in 48 hours are publicly insulted, because we cannot be sure if the world exists or is an illusion. Terrorism is big problem and it is important that everybody knows the truth so everybody can help in the fight. THe reason all this is happening is that in Spain the terrorist group ETA is to abandon terrorism (I do not believe they will but some people things is possible) and this can lead to a big score for current governement. The oposition wants to accuse ETA of 11-M to make this impossible. Of course, it is not all the oposition but only the most irresponsible part of them and El Mundo is completely inmoral chap who has personal questions against people in current governement.

It is a very long story but I stop here because this is lenghty enough.

--Igor21 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC) PS : I know "conspirationist" is not the proper word by I do not have any other to characterize the phenomenon of people stating incredible hypotesis supported by nothing except outlandish suspices, contradicing everybody, not accepting any evidence against there ideas and intending to make everybody buy such hipotesys as "THE TRUTH".

• Igor21, I thank you for your personal feedback. As you may have already seen, I first proposed (without being privy to the full Talk debate) that the controversy section be separated out. (I would also support a policy as such.) However, not being familiar with all the issues, I currently count myself as a bystander and mediator. In fact, I don't have time to want to familiarize myself with all the issues.
• Given my tentative agreement with your overall conclusion -- that the controversy section be separated, I must say that, as an outsider to Spain, Spanish politics, etc, I cannot distinguish between what you say and what the "conspiricists" say. I know that must be deflating, but you seem to have missed my hint: Your argument and reasoning sound as conspiratorial as ... the conspiricists you are trying to refute. It does not help your position when you say (paraphrasing) "it is clear that the hypothesis that the WTC buildings were demolised by explosives is more likely than the accepted hypothesis".
• On a general note about sources: Yes, there is a hierarchy of sources. We are in agreement about that. But as far as I can tell, Wikipedians must come to consensus about which sources should be considered reliable, and which ones should not be. I am doubtful that Arbitration can or should assist on this issue.
• On another epistemological note, you say "someone did it" and "it is possible to show who it was". I think we can be CERTAIN (a rare thing) that someone did it. It is also possible to show who it was. (You said "proofs", but in English, the word here would be "evidence"; proofs indicates a definite, reasonably irrefutable conclusion.) But this is far from being certain about who was responsible.
• On a note about your comment about ETA, you say that the ETA "is to abandon terrorism". Where were you during the 2006_Madrid_Barajas_International_Airport_bombing? Or do you believe that the attribution of this event to the ETA is yet another attempt by the PP to discredit the current government? I don't want an answer -- it's a rhetorical question.
• On a general note about the press: In a free-press society, one of the roles of a press is to confront and challenge. Even if it appears like El Mundo is completely biased toward the current government, it is one of its primary roles to challenge and keep a vigilant eye on the current government. Just because you say it is biased does not mean it is an unreliable source.
• Also, I think you meant the "precession of mercury".
• Finally, on discussing specific points concerning this article or the reliability of El Mundo, we should go back to the Talk page at the 2004 bombing article. For the general epistemological and personal discussion, we can keep here.

Otheus : Yes, my English is not very good. I have answered in the article talk page the questions about it. Here only some minor points.

• Free press is to harrass governements, not to be vehicle of personal vendettas.

• I do not think that ETA is going to stop and this was what I said in my previous post. What I said is that there are people who thinks that is going to happen, not me.

Thanks for you attention. --Igor21 16:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Otheus : In my way of seeing things and Enciclopediae, El Mundo must certainly be named as someone who is inventing incredible lies and publishing them to vehicle a personal vendetta of his owner against the PSOE. Doing that, it has become the aid of some PP politicians who are seeking to cover-up his responsability by negligence in the bombings. This is the truth and this is what should be stated but I understand that in Misplaced Pages truth is nothing and everything is based on opinions.

I have had a very long quarrel in wikipedia in Spanish with a group of activists who tried to embed El Mundo non-sense in the article. More or less, we succeed by giving the conspirationists a space in a separated "conspirationist theories" article. Situation is not stable because there are people who wants to modify this article to reflect that the theories are based in nothing and then some conspirationist try to come back to the main article to take revenge. My idea is to let conspirationist put what they want in his subarticle since the bizarre epistemology of Wales allows them to do so.

I came to English Misplaced Pages following Randroide and basically to stop him of doing what he tried to do in Spanish Misplaced Pages (where he is currently blocked or very recently unblocked). Now he has managed to introduce all the El Mundo non-sense in the article after some dubious maneouvers and we are involved in a growingly complicated process. To be honest I am getting very tired of all these games. Rand Corporation is not Our Lord in Heaven and his list of terrorist events has some mistakes but is clear that his atribution of 11-March to islamist extremists is beyond any doubt and it is cristal clear that not any expert in the world has the shadow of a doubt about this (e.g. Bruce Hoffman).

What is necesary to make English Misplaced Pages reflect this widely known facts? I do not know. It is my responsability to argue for years to make truth be in Misplaced Pages when the admins here are more worried about procedures than about truth? certainly not.

Executive abstract of my stance : Naked truth should be stated in Misplaced Pages. If this is imposible as it seems to be, conspirationist should be provided with a space to say whatever they want to say out of the main article. Finally : once all the experts on terrorism have said which is the truth, what English Misplaced Pages says in its article is more a problem of English Misplaced Pages than mine.

I will try to help but I have a life to live and I cannot help to whom does not wants to be helped. Cheers. --Igor21 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: 2004 Madrid train bombings

Thank you for your message; I'll consider it carefully as I consider the case. In the meantime, you might wish to post it on the requests for arbitration page as a statement - I'm sure the other Arbitrators would find it useful as well. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, wasn't sure if that was "in the rules". I'll do it.

Oklahoma City bombing

Are you almost done with the article? I have just found a few new books and want to include information but don't want to offset your edits. Please send me a message when you're done. Thanks. --Nehrams2020 07:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Love all the great work you did on Oklahoma City bombing!! Your outstanding efforts inspired me to dig out the the copy of In Their Name I purchased at the Memorial Museum, and add some additional text and details (all fully cited of course) to a couple of different sections in the article. Thanks again for all of your great work! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job, I only had to fix a few minor things after your nice sweep through the article. I'm currently adding some more information to the lesser sections from a couple of books I got really cheap on Amazon this past week. Keep up the good work and I appreciate your help. --Nehrams2020 06:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Perhaps you can help a few "widowed paragraphs" and massage the "Media involvement" section which seems awkwardly placed. But, please, do try to resist the temptation of putting in too much stuff. For instance, I think the cost of the building upgrades could have been left out. Happy reading! --Otheus 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarfati

Sure I'll take a look again when I have a minute, I wasn't aware that anything still needed to be resolved, but I'll take a look. JoshuaZ 08:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Caution! You may get 3RR!

As per your reversions to Salsa (dance), you reverted more than 3 three times within 24 hours. Though it is helpful to do so, i think it would be better for you to ask others to revert it to protect yourself. - - Microtony 14:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. However, 3RR excludes obvious vandalism. Inserts like "hand on her butt" and "fart" seem to apply here. --Otheus 14:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Salsa_%28dance%29&diff=112712080&oldid=112708203 wasn't obviously vandalism, and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Salsa_%28dance%29&diff=113062161&oldid=113062054 blanked a section, but was followed by vandalism by the same editor. So I'll remove this from my watch page.

I know what you reverted are vandalisms. But in case some vandals trapped you then you may eventually violate the 3RR rule. Well, just be careful. - Microtony 02:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bacronym

Sorry to have re-added IBM. You are welcome to cleanup the article based on the new light. (That is has to be an acronym to be a bacronym). I had never looekd at it that way. Please feel free to revamp the article. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. I removed it (via WP:Bold), but also to mainly to draw attention to the discussion. I'm researching this topic. --Otheus 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It might technically be OR, but I rewrote the article to make the term inclusive of initialisms (as much as it irks my sense of linguistic order!). It's especially perturbing (notable!) that at least two online dictionaries used non-acronyms in their examples of a backronysm. At least that marginalizes the OR aspect. --Otheus 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hominem, Ad Nauseum

"ad hominem"...

Genius, HYSTERICAL! 76.166.123.129 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of ad hominem, would love your help. Seems that since "disagreements" with certain editors, my articles are being "stalked." 76.166.123.129 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide more specifics? --Otheus 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank goodness! Please, your sanity is needed. Here it is: because several editors disagree with this editor, Griot, re: Ralph Nader (see Talk page), and because I challenged Antaeus Feldspar on this Jeanne Marie Spicuzza talk page, which he seems to have a history of attacking, suddenly, we're all under attack from him, Calton, who now accuses me of being the subject of the article simply because I don't like my work tagged and trashed, and this Griot. "Griot" then accuses these several editors of being the same person (see below, Pastrordavid page, my page, Ralph Nader Talk page, practically EVERY page!), also is on an edit revert tirade (see User history). Now it seems he's "stalking" us, articles we're contributing to (see Griot and User 71.139.27.85, which is the most likely same person, as in, "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks!", or reaction formation, and denialism, all in one). Funny, it seems those quickest to scream "Fire!" are often the ones fanning the flames. "Whoever said it, let it," comes to mind. Notice, too, Griot is erasing perfectly permissible comments from his/her Talk page. Isn't THAT a violation? These editors are the epitome of Ad Hominem! We're all spent (see Ralph Nader Talk, Pastordavid, others). I even requested RfA. I would VERY very much appreciate your assistance with this WikiMafia! Thank you, greatly, in advance! 76.166.123.129 09:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Example from the Antaeus Feldspar talk page:

Help, Please!

Antaeus, can you help me out? The nonsense with user 76.166.123.129 has started again. I'm battling her sock puppet army at the Ralph Nader article. Look into this: The Nervous Mermaid is wholly interested in Ralph Nader and has not commented on any other article in Misplaced Pages except for Seasons & a Muse, Inc, an article that has had only two contributors, one of whom, not coincidentally, is 76.166.123.129, who is often a commentator on the Ralph Nader article. Meanwhile, there's Telogen, who only comments on Ralph Nader and one other article, Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, an article which also happens to be visited extremely often by user 76.166.123.129. None of these people has been on Misplaced Pages for more than 2 weeks. It's a farce Griot 02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC

User 76.166.123.129, Telogen, and Nervous Mermiad

--Otheus 13:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Otheus, thank you for your comments at user 76.166.123.129's page regarding my conflict with this person. I believe I have been editing the Ralph Nader article in good faith. I am a longstanding contributor to Wiki, having written many articles and edited many. At the Nader article, I believe I am in conflict with several people who are either one and the same or are on the same computer. Have a look at this: The Nervous Mermaid is wholly interested in Ralph Nader and has not commented on any other article in Misplaced Pages except for Seasons & a Muse, Inc, an article that has had only two contributors, one of whom is 76.166.123.129, who is often a commentator on the Ralph Nader article. Meanwhile, there's Telogen, who only comments on Ralph Nader and one other article, Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, an article which also happens to be visited often by user 76.166.123.129 very, very often. These people congregate around three articles: Ralph Nader and two very obscure ones, Seasons & a Muse, Inc. and Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. Is that weird? If I'm correct and these people are the same, a principle is at stake here: whether a handful of people can hijack a Wiki article (Ralph Nader) and use Misplaced Pages for self-promotion (Seasons & a Muse, Inc. and Jeanne Marie Spicuzza). Anyhow, thanks for listening to my conspiracy theory. Griot 16:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's try to assume good faith about these users. So far you having been, I think, and that's fine. However, the user has now launched a "stalking" complaint against you. I'm not sure what the user means by stalking, but your latest change to the Spicuzza article might fit under this category. So I would suggest for now that you undo that particular change. It's an obscure article, but it sources imdb, so let others decide its fate.

Now, while its against policy to use sock puppets and meat puppets, see WP:IAR. I believe that, in the debate surrounding the quote from Atlantic Monthly, they are correct. Just because you can follow the spirit of Wiki policies does not mean you should, especially when it lowers the quality of an article. In my opinion, that line slants the article with an anti-Bush point-of-view and should at least be moved to a more relevant section of the article.

Finally, let's say it's no longer time to assume good faith. You can (1) ask an admin to find out if the users in question have used the same IP address. (2) See the WP:DR page and WP:RFCpages calling attention to both the argument and the argumentation tactics.

But let's first give the user the chance to respond to my message.

--Otheus 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fuck it. I give up. I can't argue with four different people. Griot 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to argue with me on the RN article. I am not interested in editing or commenting on it. I only commented on it here to demonstrate that I am not unilaterally taking sides. As a long-time internet-community poster (dial-in BBSes, newsgroups, MUDs, Internet chat rooms, Web-based BBSes, email newsgroups, and now wikipedia), I understand your frustration. Over the past month, I've been devling into past debates between users, ones that have gotten users banned, others disillusioned, and yet other users burned out. I'm trying to prevent that here. Meanwhile, am going to make a request for checkuser a case at WP:SPP. We'll see where that goes. --Otheus 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Count me among the disillusioned and soon to be burned out. This is clearly a case of the same people doing the same edits. Why should I waste my time with this bullshit? Griot 17:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There are remedies. Take some time off, let me follow up at WP:SPP and see where this leads. --Otheus 17:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Otheus, thanks for the mention *lol*. Just wanted to correct some things before I'm drawn and quartered ;) My use of "obtuse" seems proper- "not sharp," yes? Blunt, if you will. "Lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect." Opinion, yes, but correct usage, I think. Having studied in Germany, presently studying German language, I can tell you that "Bitte" also means, "please," or a formal acknowledgement or offering, like, "welcome," or "you're welcome." Just wanted to clear that up. I noticed, too, reading the history, Fledspar incident, etc., (again, adding my OP) but is there proof in the "accusations"? Otherwise, could be libelous- I even see the IP is identified publicly as hers (if, in fact, it is, and not someone else's, or someone else using it). Is that legal? Just expressing concern. Things aren't always as they seem, you're probably aware. IP sharing can be a tricky business.

Hope we meet again under happier circumstances. Bitte! And danke... Oh, you may want to add that, if "the accused" were all the same person, we'd not only be 'simultaneous' writers, as you've duly noted, we'd basically never sleep, from the looks of it! The Nervous Mermaid 12:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, TNM. I'm glad you don't seem to be taking offense. Of course it's not libel !! Imagine you are asleep in bed at night. You hear a noise. You get up and see the front door swinging shut. You go out and you see someone who looks like your neighbor racing back to their home, going in the front door. The next day, you call the police and say, "I think my neighbor may have broken and entered into my house last night". You sign an affidavit as such. That's not libel. It turns out that your neighbor was also broken into. It's still not libel. You are simply stating for the record that you saw someone do something wrong. No, libel would be me claiming something damaging about you that is not true, that cannot possibly be known by me or that I definitely know to be false, and it is damaging.

Anyway, in due course, admins will determine whether or not you are a sockpuppet of the other editors.

And some of us wikipedians do not ever sleep. --Otheus 13:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Otheus. First, in the interest of fairness and neutrality, and since you have the attention for detail, I kindly request that you file a suspected 'sockpuppetry' for Griot and 71.139.27.85. It's fairly obvious to me that this is the same person.

Also, I think you've misunderstood my remarks. I simply observed that some of the facts, even before my appearance, seem more like accusations. Presenting accusations as fact and identifying a living person's IP location or address publically, if it is theirs, and without their permission, seems potentially libelous to me. That's it.

Sadly, not one mention about the quality of my contributions, which were made in good faith. One senior user is met with disagreement and so hunts the others down and makes enough noise, suddenly our good faith and contributions are met with attack. I think anything more I could contribute at this point is suspect, and I find the flavor is gone. I do sleep, and have other matters I'd rather involve myself with. Tsch��, The Nervous Mermaid 20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Defend yourself, why don't ya? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Telogen

Your silence speaks volumes. 71.139.27.85 20:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Do not do this: you CANNOT do things like this, ie, signing your post with someone else's name/ IP address." I didn't! 76.166.123.129 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted this on my page, too. I'm really upset-- "Looking at the edit, I think when I pasted from the my Talk page, it reverted the "odd" characters or something. Boy, this really hurts, though. I'll always be guilty until proven innocent, it seems. 76.166.123.129 02:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)" 76.166.123.129 02:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding to list of suspects of sockpuppets Griot/71.139.27.85, Mikesmash. Plus 71.139.27.85 is still active and vandalizing my talk page. Btw, how did you know that Griot was male and ran for mayor under Green Party in SF? 76.166.123.129 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A serious error on my part. I saw this addition to his user page, and thought it was an autobiography, but it is not. I overlooked this line in his User page:

I also use this page to write first drafts of articles. Pardon the gibbrerish below. There is method in my madness.

Okay, now I see what you mean. I thought you meant User:71.139.27.85 or The Nervous Mermaid signatures, where the characters reverted somhow to question marks. I hurriedly cut and pasted from my Talk page, above, instead of below, your signature. It was an accident. I didn't do it deliberately. I'm very sorry. 76.166.123.129 06:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry, I saw my mistake, and removed the comment from your page. Faith restored. --Otheus 08:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC) :)

Oh yeah! I see what you mean about the article. It wasn't there when I visited the other day.

Thank you Otheus, I appreciate all your help. 76.166.123.129 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Otheus/ssp/Talogen

Hi, I am a clerk with the Checkuser system. I was wondering whether you wanted to fill the case now or to wait a bit longer? :) If you want to wait, could you temporary remove the category at the bottom of the page please? We use it to list the cases on the checkuser pages. -- lucasbfr 14:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I want to get this resolved. If checkuser is an appropriate way to deal with this user, then let's do it now. But if procedure/policy/community standards, et al, say that I should wait a few days after opening the case with WP:SSP, then so be it. What do you think? --Otheus 14:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am quite new myself :) Keep in mind that if I am correct, the IP logs are kept for 30 days. I see you listed it meanwhile. Good luck with the request :) -- lucasbfr 14:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So when I want to re-list it, I simply re-add the category back to the page? --Otheus 14:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

When you want to relist it, simply edit the case you opened to add a new section at the top, and you relist the page at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Pending. Checkusers prefer having all the cases concerning an individual on the same page. I hope that helps! -- lucasbfr 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

PA issues

He called me an "arch-slanderer" that's a PA pure and simple. Frankly, I've been working hard trying to make this an NPOV article about the notable matters involving Sarfati, and these comments of his simply aren't helpful. If he can't make any productive points regarding editing the article, then I see no reason to mollycoddle him. JoshuaZ 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, you accused Sarfati of supporting torture, after trying to delete the article. You seem determined to insert a criticism section, which is simply not found in articles on people ideologically opposed to Sarfati. And you have banned opponents while hiding behind a very dubious ArbCom ruling. It is hardly surprising that one of the bannees doubts your objectivity (banning for a mere edit undoing something egregious is hardly "mollycoddling". 60.242.13.87 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

One can't get away with personal attacks by adding a few weasel words. The intent is very clear. Guettarda 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - bear in mind what he makes his living doing. Guettarda 20:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you are both missing a very important point. I'm assuming good faith on both parts here. First, JZ did not knowingly enter a statement (ie, about torture) that might knowingly be damaging and was not knowingly a false misrepresentation or unreliable source. Second, that 58.'s claim that JZ was making libelous remarks is not a

personal remark, but one regarding (valid, but refutable) interpretation of JZ's actions.

A bit of a slander yourself, Guettarda?60.242.13.87 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. If you're referring to this, I don't mind proving a WP:POINT as long as its obvious even to Blind Freddy. ;) --Otheus 02:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now any one of these points may be wrong, but it's hard to see where the attack is personal:

1. JZ adds to Sarfati article reference to Sarfati supporting torture.
2. Said reference is a poorly sourced and proves to be a lie.
3. 58. accuses JZ of inserting a lie into the article.
4. 58. accuses JZ of "slander".
5. 58. accuses JZ of "arch-slander".

If JZ inserted a lie into an article, one that is poorly sourced, it might fall under the category of libel. That 58. decides this is the case (which if you believe that he is Sarfati is quite reasonable), then him calling JZ a slanderer is only a categorical mistake, not a substantive one, and thus it is based purely on JZ's actions, not his intent, person, or character. Now calling JZ an arch slanderer might be itself libelous, but perhaps he has other cases in mind where JZ has libeled or inserted lies into articles.

That's not saying you (JZ) are not right in seeing this as a personal attack. Just that I did not see it as such. (whew).

--Otheus 20:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

He didn't accuse anyone of "arch-slander" but called me an "arch-slanderer" (note the difference). Even if a user had added in information that was libel, calling another user a libeler would still be a personal attack. And none of this deals with the basic fact that these comments are legal threats. JoshuaZ 20:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree and always agreed with you on the legal threats part. I just don't see the salient difference between accusing someone of something and calling someone something. But really, I think it's a moot point. You do what you feel is right. --Otheus 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the legal threat? I didn't see anything from 58 like "I will take you to court for this." Slander has a wide non-legal usage, e.g. according to dictionary.com:

1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

Indeed, it doesn't even seem to be reasonable that the legal use could be understood, by what you point out, that the legal term for something in writing is libel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.13.87 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Because generally speaking, slander is against the law. I don't know about NZ/AUS, but since laws there are generally similar to the ones in Britain and the US, I think I can speak with some certainty there: it's a legal threat. And the legal term is libel, yes, when in writing or print. But slander refers to "transitory" medium, which may include radio (and transcripts), and possibly one such as this, where statements may be made in a transitory fashion (edited or removed later). I prefer libel because to me, this is closer to an in-print medium, but the fact is that slander applies just as well. So ... anyway, just stay away from "slander", "libel", etc. Better yet, when referring to JZ's torture insertion, say "falsehoods" or "false remarks". Lying implies that he knew they were lies, which goes to libel, and is a personal attack. You may want to file an WP:AN/I notice about his insertion of libelous material, but only if you can make a clear, non-trivial case for it. --Otheus 12:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. I just saw his "Hitler admins" remark. Even I can't weasel him out of that one. --Otheus 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a general accusation not a specific one. It could refer to the banning of opposing viewpoints on an article and uneven punishments by the ruling body on an opponent compared with a mere warning against one of their own.60.242.13.87 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, like other co*k-sucking, brainless, wife-beating, jew-baiting miscreants, he was making a reference to Hitler's totalitarian tactics, rather than Hitler's other salient features, such as mass-murder, starting a war with the whole world, genocide, etc. Of course, there is no evidence that Hitler beat his wife. (PS: WP:POINT is merely a guideline) *blink* --Otheus 08:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Abuse accusations

What part of my record of blocks, over the 19 months that I have been an admin, leads you to the conclusion that I would block abusively? Guettarda 03:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my confusion. Where did I accuse of abusive blocks?

If you are referring to here, then I apologize for not being clear -- I was pointing out that certain Sarfati talk page frequenters and other admins might be concerned that you would take action in violation of precedent. It looked from your talk page as if you were readying to block 58, and frankly, that would be like throwing gas into the flames. --Otheus 08:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How did it look like I was "readying to block 58"? I had done nothing in the 30 hours since Joshua posted the message and I had said on Joshua's talk page (30 hours before) that I wasn't planning to block 58. So coming along and implying that I was acting abusively is a massive failure to assume good faith on your part. I had done nothing in 30 hours, I don't think I have ever had a block called abusive, so why you would look at my actions and conclude that I was about to block 58, and that I was about to do so in an "abusive" manner, is beyond me. So no, I haven't stopped beating my wife, have you?

As for "taking action in violation of precedent" and "other admins"...I have no idea what you are talking about. Guettarda 14:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Thank you, 58. for fanning the flames</sarcasm>. I have removed your (58.*) remarks. You may discuss that with Guettarda on his talk page if you prefer. --Otheus 15:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda wrote: So coming along and implying that I was acting abusively is a massive failure to assume good faith on your part.

Guettarda, I'm sensing a hostile tone from you. This seems to be a minor misunderstanding. I'm sorry that I did not make it clear that I, personally, was not assuming a lack of good faith on your part... As I'm sure you know, it can be very difficult to follow converstations that span several pages. Will you apply WP:LOVE and forgive me? --Otheus 15:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you still find it necessary for me to respond to your last point? --Otheus 15:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, by making that "wife beating" remark at me, I assess that you are under the impression that my "wife beating" remark was directed at you. Am I correct in this assessment? If so, I will take time to clear that up, for it was most certainly not directed at you. --Otheus 15:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarfati again

Three things, first, let me thank you for your defense here. Second, related to that dif, I think you meant "incorrect" when you wrote "correct". Third, I'm no longer responding to 58.* since none of the comments are germane to improving the article. You may want to do the same. JoshuaZ 13:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you very much for the heads-up on that one. --Otheus 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the barnstar. JoshuaZ 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

portion from 58. deleted, since he later rescinded the point on Talk:JS --Otheus 06:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

AA was also awarded a barnstar, yet was subsequently banned for life from editing a number of articles.58.162.2.122 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

58, I strongly urge you to discuss improvements to the article and stop complaining about admins and ArbCom. Discussion of article improvement is far more likely to result in productive dialogue. JoshuaZ 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, I strongly urge you to stop hiding behind corrupt Arbcom rulings and get rid of this egregiously one-sided punishment, so editors are on level terms again, if you and Wiki desire credibility.58.162.2.122 23:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And 58. I strongly urge you to gather evidence about these "corrupt Arbcom rulings" as I urged 60.*. Create a user page or such with links to diffs of the original arguments, etc, and what other evidence you can find, and do it in a concise, *civil* way. Also, it would help if you can address the topic that you are a suspected sock puppet of AA. --Otheus 06:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Caution

It would be helpful if you would not encourage banned and suspicious editors subject to arbcomm rulings like User:58.162.2.122 and User:60.242.13.87 to disrupt the articles that are the subject of the same rulings. Per the arbcomm ruling "Agapetos angel and User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos, User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204 are banned from editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel." 58.162.2.122 has again been blocked for walking in the footsteps of Agapetos angel and 60.242.13.87 is well on his way to earning the same distinction. By engaging them you simply encourage them to disrupt the article and the project. FeloniousMonk 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop going around implying that "JZ and FM were abusing their authority." I understand that you have a personal ax to grind with me but that sort of reckless allegation is too easily construed as fanning the flames and personal attack, and could easily wind up in dispute resolution. FeloniousMonk 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also delete your "evidence" subpage User:Otheus/sarfati. The Agapetos Angel matter was settled long ago by arbcom ruling and your rehashing of old evidence and gather of new does not serve the project but rather disrupts it by resurrecting and fanning the flames of a previously settled disruption. Given your history of gunning for me, Guettarda, JoshuaZ it is rightly viewed by me as a form of oblique personal attack, attempting to cast a cloud of suspicion and innuendo over established administrators in good standing. Should you choose not delete the page (which I or any other can do for you) I will seek to have it removed by the community through MFD. FeloniousMonk 01:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)