Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chrislk02 (talk | contribs) at 17:44, 18 April 2007 (→[]: dont feed the trolls). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:Telogen

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)

The "wife beating" remarks were based on your accusations against me. First you imply that I am going to abuse my ability to block (an accusation made which was supported by neither my actions with regards to 58, nor my past actions), and then you characterise me as looking like I am about to block 58, when I had made to actions to that effect in 30 hours. Your accusations presupposed wrongdoing, and when I asked you about them, your comments amounted to a "have you stopped beating your wife" statement. You say that you are "sensing a hostile tone". I am not hostile, but I am annoyed with your continuing failure to assume good faith. And now, I see that you are in the process of compiling an attack page.

Guettarda, I'm sensing a hostile tone from you...Will you apply WP:LOVE and forgive me? So, you accuse me of all sorts of wrongdoing, you compile an attack page against me and other editors...and you ask for forgiveness? You need to stop kicking people before you ask them to forgive you for kicking them. Guettarda 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You said "GT has recently accused me of making personal attacks against him; I have proposed that these attacks arose from a misunderstanding and have apologized for my wording". I seem to have missed your comments where you attributed your accusations to "misunderstandings" and apologised for your actions. Could you please point me to these? Thanks. Guettarda 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and I thank you for asking. In my first response to you, just below the start of this subsection is my apology. Here is the diff and here is an excerpt of what I said:

I apologize for my confusion .... I apologize for not being clear.

And so just to make it clear, I apologized for my wording. Normally, (on Misplaced Pages) that's indistinguishable from actions, but I make the distinction because you believe that I was making a personal attack (an "action") and I assert that I was not, that the inferrence of an attack is based on my wording. I do hope that clears this up. --Otheus 09:09, 20 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)

I see that FM has banned 58 for a month. This actually goes a long way to support the case against them. Seems like Vaknin has been vindicated in spades.60.242.13.87 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarfati

First requests

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)

I'm not sure where I said that. Can you point out the diff? Could it be that this was something 58. or 60. said and that you took my response as affirmation? --Otheus 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarfati and AA evidence pages

Please also delete your "evidence" subpage redacted. The Agapetos Angel matter was settled long ago by arbcom ruling and your rehashing of old evidence and gathering 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 admin can do for you) I will seek to have it removed by the community through MFD. FeloniousMonk 01:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

FM, In light of the personall attacks against you by others and allegedly by me, I greatly appreciate your civil tone. There are several minunderstandings that we definitely need to discuss and try to clear up. Sunday, however, I will be gone most of the day Sunday (I'm also 6 to 7 hours ahead of you), and I must now go to bed. So perhaps we could discuss this in email or google chat or something.

PS: Regarding the "evidence page": First, I have attempted to be very, very discreet about this page.

Second, Pages in my "user space" for the purpose of taking notes, etc, are expressly allowed in the guidelines here. If you have trouble with something, or feel something is personally attacking you, go ahead and edit that part out (replacing it with a small text noting its removal so we can discuss it later. But until we've had a chance to more fully discuss and clear up these misunderstandings, please leave it in place. --Otheus 01:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No doubt you tried to be discrete. Anyone compiling such an attack page with a lick of sense would. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable per our policies, guidelines and conventions. FeloniousMonk 04:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I must comment that you have either not closely read the guidelines and policies concerning this matter, or have chosen to interpret them in the most agreggious light. Pages constructed in good faith, (see Misplaced Pages:attack pages:

It should be noted that this guideline is not meant to apply to formal good faith reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior made in accord with policy. For example, a request for comment filed in good faith would not be considered an attack page.

Several of your comments on the AfD page were false and misleading, out of either sloppiness or bad faith. This is very sad. So let me try to set the record straight.

1. Your name (and those of your wikiposse) were at the top of the "sarfati" evidence page listed as a key to the actions concerning 58. and 60. Nowhere in that article were you or your actions attacked or questioned. It is beyond me how someone who actually read the page would come to the conclusion you or anyone else was being attacked.
2. I realize you and I had a disagreement concerning the Denialism page, but this certainly does not amount to a "an established history of having a personal ax to grind with those named on the page Guettarda, JoshuaZ and myself".
   • You and I disagreed over denialism, and if it was personal, it was because I was appalled that you, an admin, and "user in good standing" would create an article that was essentially Original Research. But the debate was over content. (The construction of the word "denialism" from "denial" gives it a completely separate definition, and I could not find even an online dictionary that had such a reference, and neither could you. WP:NEO applied here, but your POV was that it didn't.) I think it's natural for an author to feel attacked when an article they created and worked on is put up for AfD. If that is how you felt, I'm sorry for having given you the impression it was personal.
   • Guettarda and I have had a misunderstanding over my advising him not to take action against 58., action which you did eventually take. (banning 58.)
   • JoshuaZ and I have had completely civil discussions; I even awarded him a barnstar ignoring the attacks from 58. and 60. I should also note that it was these evidence pages which led to my discovery that JoshuaZ had not in fact been responsible for the insertion of the "torture" comments on the Jonathan Sarfati. I would describe my relationship with JZ as "friendly". He has earned my respect, and I hope (prior to this incident) I had earned his.
3. You wrote: Otheus has been resurrecting and fanning the flames of a previous incident settled by arbcomm ruling after failing to gain the upper hand in a content dispute at Jonathan Sarfati. This is sloppy wording. It implied I have been doing X because I failed to get Y. This might be construed as a personal attack, but I think you meant to imply that the it was the "previous incident" which resulted from a failure of the involved parties to get Y. I was not involved in the previous incident.
4. resurrecting and fanning the flames: It's understandable how one might draw this conclusion. After you blocked 58., he returned to the talk page and started complaining. Not knowing the whole history, I attempted to calm him down. The more I looked into the history and tried to give an objective, outside qualification to the AA debacle, the more he became vocal. My "aa" page was essentially a "put up or shut up" page, to let him and I work constructively to objectively analyze the case and outcome of that case. So it's understandable how one can draw this conclusion, but if that is the case, it was my self-appointed role of fire-inspector.
5. The "sarfati" page was in response to a question another admin had regarding whether 58. or 60. was a SSP of AA. Since these 3 used distinct IP addresses, checkuser wouldn't work here, so this was a preliminary attempt to analyze usage and editing patterns. Near the top of the page, it was stated that the conclusions were that 58. and 60. were not the same writer as AA.
6. You said the page is an attempt to cast a cloud of suspicion and innuendo over established administrators in good standing. This is incongruent with the fact that I attempted to keep these pages private and out of general view and (belatedly) marked them with disclaimer headers.
7. Further, if it were the case that these pages amounted to raising "a cloud of suspicion and innuendo", then well, it's not appropriate for you or anyone else to delete them. If you or anyone else takes actions that are inconsistent with that of "administrators in good standing", those actions deserve to be scrutinized without fear of harrassment from those editors.
8. Finally, you added the "notes" page from Guettarda. This was essentially added at his request! Yes! On this very talk page, Guettarda challenged me to review his block log for cases of possible administrative abuse.

This should close this discussion. If you want to apologize for the misunderstanding or if you feel you absolutely must respond, please be very careful how you do so. Since my pages were deleted, I have let 24 hours pass before posting my response -- in order to ensure my head was clear of anger and fear. I strongly suggest that you take similar safeguards -- not that you wouldn't. --Otheus 08:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Redaction of FM/GT's attacks

Is there a reason you removed this item from someone else's comment? redacted You're certainly not making friends, and any influencing of people on your part is such that their impression of you becomes increasingly negative. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Jim. If somehow the page in question is an attack page (which it is not), it follows that less attention to it is desirable, not more. Since this page seemingly violates civility, redacting the link to the page is helping to maintain civility. --Otheus 21:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean removing not redacting, and your assumption is incorrect regarding the removal. Hiding misdeeds does not make them go away. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please look up the word wikt:redacted -- it is more specific than "removal". Labeling actions as "misdeeds" does not make them so. Since you have labeled these as "misdeeds", I can no longer take your advice in good faith. Please STOP commenting on this matter. If we are to have a fight, let it be over something substantive and meaningful. --Otheus 07:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I rescind my request to STOP and my declaration that I can longer take your request in good faith. I apologize for lacking AGF. --Otheus 22:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary would hardly be my first source (I prefer the OED, and if the OED is not handy, Webster's). Redact has one of three meanings: 1 : to put in writing : FRAME; 2 : to select or adapt (as by obscuring or removing sensitive information) for publication or release; broadly : EDIT; 3 : to obscure or remove (text) from a document prior to publication or release. Note the specification of "publication" -- that makes all the difference. Merely removing something from a Wiki talk page is removal, not redaction. That the word is misused by government types has little bearing on its really meaning.

Well, I'm accustomed to the term redaction which is used in archaeological terms, when, for instance, reviewing whether or not a portion of an ancient manuscript is original or has been redacted (See Redaction/Literary redaction). After your complaint, I looked up the Wiktionary definition and it fit my understanding of that word. At any rate, it was a kind of removal or edit, we agree on that. --Otheus 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you defend removing text from someone else's comments, an action that is generally verboten on Misplaced Pages except in the case of personal attacks, which was clearly not the case here..

Okay, now you should look up the word clearly. ;) See my comment below. --Otheus 12:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a "fight", rather I'm pointing out that I have an intense dislike of attack pages and removal of text from the comments of other editors. I hope this clears things up. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for salving that issue; I was feeling "ganged up on". I note your dislike and removal of text from comments of other editors. What I removed were links to the "attack page" and to the deletion page of such. Now, calling these "attack pages" was an opinion FM and others are free to make, but doing so assumes bad faith; ie, is a form of personal attack. I'm not going to belabor that point because that doesn't matter to me, but if it did matter enough to him to view these as an attack page, then I was justified in removing their reference. What I don't understand is this: if you do dislike attack pages so much, then why would you object to the removal of the links to the attack page itself? --Otheus 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The addition of the link is one of the things that helps keep the goings on of Misplaced Pages more-or-less transparent. In other words, our credibility is higher when we allow the warts to be seen as opposed to daubing them with makeup. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, the transparency of Wikpedia. Tell me Jim, how is it that you, Guettarda, and FM will suddenly flock to the same page (shall I provide diffs?) without any activity on your respective talk pages. What transparent mechanism of communication did you use to gang up on me. How exactly was it that you stumbled across my talk page just after FM posted his AfD? --Otheus 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And will SOMEONE please tell me how those pages fit the definition of an "attack page"??? --Otheus 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the intent was to discredit other editors without cause. You complain about not following AGF, but where was your adherence to AGF? There is a large difference between promoting transparency and slinging mud. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You say you know what my intent was? Fascinatingly brilliant of you. Will you go on record saying that my alleged attacks had absolutely no basis and that you the allegations against them to be unfounded and untrue? --Otheus 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, Jim, it would appear that you are essentially wrong about my removal of material from my own user talk page -- it is not prohibited or frowned upon. Please review the last sentence of Misplaced Pages:User_page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. --Otheus 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Had you removed it completely (meaning the whole conversation was archived), I wouldn't care, but in removing part of a comment you altered what the person was trying to say, and therein lies the problem I have with what you did (I was pretty clear about that from the get go). Jim62sch 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I almost see your point -- I just don't see how my removal changed what he was trying to say. Nevertheless, in the future, I will be more careful and take into consideration your advice. --Otheus 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the Bush Administration where unwanted criticisn just goes *poof*. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, but that's exactly what was being done to me. The evidence I was collecting went *poof* because FM thought it was an attack against him. Even if I was using evidence against FM (which I wasn't), it would have been in poor taste to remove it. That you also voted for the deletion of this attack page means you also wanted it deleted. How do you explain this apparent contradiction? --Otheus 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no contradiction really. The evidence was used for the MfD vote. As I too felt that the three pages were attack pages I voted for them to be deleted, which they were; after due process.

As for the sock-check I was unaware of it. I've never seen FM not abide by a sock-check finding. As for FNMF, I have very strong suspicions. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

About the personal attacks

To 151.151.21.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)/151.151.73.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): Your "warning" was not a warning, it was an attack accusing me of a personal attack. You simply don't understand what constitutes a personal attack. What I sent you was a warning, as in "do it again and you will be blocked". What you sent me was an unfounded assertion and an additional assertion: "they need to cease". Since I never started making personal attacks, I can do nothing to cease them. Also, I don't think much of "warnings" from anonymous IP users with a history of vandalism and deletion. --Otheus 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, it is disingenous to remove the attack and then link a diff to it. If the material was so offensive, why link to it? If it wasn't offensive enough to post on my page, why remove it from its source? --Otheus 20:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Request granted. --Uncle Ed 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Just know that whatever you choose to call your "comments" plenty of people still see them as personal attacks, as Ed's pointed out to via his link above already. 151.151.73.169 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing is for sure, there are far too many personal attacks around here. I think it has the effect of making folks feel paranoid that they are being attacked when, maybe they aren't. I mean, some people are really obvious about it (eg, "like other hitler admins") , others are more sly about it ("history of having a personal axe to grind"), and yet others even more sly (this one by Asmodeus comes to mind). After reading that, I have to admin I responded to Jim62sch in basically the same way. I owe him an apology. --Otheus 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read that you have a personal axe to grind seems a perfectly reasonable observation. I don't know how else to account for the "comment" you made to Guettarda after undoing the redirect of his talk page; something like that takes some forethought. "No harm done"? I'm not so sure. Paraphrasing you: it's not your goals that I object to, it's your style. And I hope a style that will be reverted by eating some humble pie. 151.151.73.169 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. The only thing is, I don't know why he left. Perhaps I should have investigated that first. I assumed his leaving was for good, but I was trying to be reassuring that it doesn't have to be that way. Further, I was trying to reassure him that I didn't issue him ill-will. Well, I guess I failed at that. :( --Otheus 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And just to clear this up -- I didn't undo the Redirect. It still functioned afterwards.--Otheus 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this ...

Hi ... I've passively noticed your notes to SlimVirgin's page and just now on Jimmy Wales' page asking for admin guidance with something. I suggest trying User:Chrislk02. He's a relatively new admin, but, at least for me, has been helpful, prompt and cheerful each time I've asked. If he doesn't work out for you for some reason, you may find this list helpful. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 00:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Otheus 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly look into it, however it will be tommorow morning before I get a chance to look at it. Is that ok? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I can go to bed now (1:56am here). --Otheus 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for being available, Chris. Good night, all! Keesiewonder 00:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, glad I can help! (Thats what I am here for). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: checkuser on FMNF

Hi, I don't think we clerks have the power to escalate a case, I asked for more input from my fellow clerks though :). For your other question, I have previously seen people part of an investigation commenting on the case talk page. But I don't think it changes anything on the investigation, if the case is bogus it will be rejected :). Cheers. -- lucasbfr 11:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Research

Based on my research, I think your edits are in good faith, although mistakeable as possible sockpuppetry to the casual glance. Your recent interest in the article may seem suspicisious, especially following user:Agapetos angel ban on editing the article. However, looking at the dates, there is a almost a 1 year gap between when angel edited the article and when you edited the article and a 9 month edit between angels last edit ever and your edits to Jonathan Sarfati. Based on this article, and the other articles, Ken Ham and Creation Ministries International (which by the way you have never edited that I can find), I really dont see the connection. However, there could be something I am missing and have asked the other parties to comment. Based solely on your edits to Jonathan Sarfati, I have research your edits and the such and out of your 6 total edits to the article, 5 were reverting to a previous state either your edits, or an anon editors edits. The only edit that is making a real change is this one] which appears to be a rewording and nothing tenditious. I cant see any reason to believe that your edits were nothing by good faith unless I am given evidence to prove otherwise. Hope this helps. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am comforted.

Would you also look at something very specific: my original "insult" to Guettarda, as documented on this talk page, and my User pages which FeloniousMonk had deleted. To what extent would you agree with their assessments? --Otheus 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I cant find the instance you are referring to. Can you point me to a specific diff, or copy and paste the material here where I can find it? Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I saved prematurely. The links of diffs are now there. --Otheus 14:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

While this edit] was probably in poor taste (I wont say it was a great idea), it probably could have been stated much nicer. However, you expressed concern of abuse of power based on a conflict of interest. I am not sure if the statement could be backed up but, I dont really see it as a personal attack, meerly a, "I think you have more of a reason to be involved in this than most of us may think" Again, it could have been stated much more tactfully but I dont think it was realy an attack (just my humble interpretation). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

←No problem, glad I could offer another opinion. If there is ever anything else I can help you with, please let me know. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Langan

Thanks for your compliment about my sense of humor. Thanks also for your contributions to the entry on Chris Langan. As you probably know, this has been a fraught entry for a long time. I have only recently begun to contribute to the entry, but I think positively. If you look at my user page, you will see a copy of my first comment on the entry, and below that a set of links to what I consider to be important edits and comments in the recent history of the entry. I think that together they form a clear picture of what has been occurring with this entry. The recent input by yourself and NightSky has assisted a difficult process in recent days. If you know all this already, forgive me for mentioning it. And if you don't know it already, forgive me for pointing you toward quite a long series of edits that probably won't be that enjoyable to read (except for my own clear and pleasant prose of course). Thanks again. FNMF 02:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, and while you're waiting for the edit wars to resume, why don't you take a glance over my Talk page to see whose feathers I've ruffled. Recognize any names? No reply needed :) --Otheus 02:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I noticed. FNMF 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised to realise that you had filed a checkuser request about me several days ago. And a little disappointed that you did not inform me of this. I did not really understand why you mentioned in the request that I had left a comment for Jimmy Wales, as though this was evidence of some bad intent. And I would say that Mr Wales more than agreed "to some extent." His intervention was quick, clear and decisive (about a matter that had been ongoing for many months, and about which I had been told by other editors that I was disruptive because I was putting arguments with no validity). And even though in his first comment on the matter he indicated that he was not convinced the matter was libelous, only that it was blatant original research, in his follow-up comments he made it clear he considered the matter non-notable, and that there was absolutely no justification for its inclusion. I can only hope that, whatever doubts you had, they are now allayed. As I have mentioned on other occasions, I have no connection to Mr Langan, am not a proponent of his ideas, am not a proponent of ID, and only know of Mr Langan through the media (particularly the Errol Morris program). I am actually surprised they allowed the request, given that no evidence of bad behaviour was given, but now that you have the results, I hope you feel better about my contributions. FNMF 03:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if a user "left the project," this would appear to be due to the intervention of Mr Wales, not my own intervention. I note also that he has since "returned" after a very brief departure. His being upset by Mr Wales' intervention is due, in my opinion, to the difficulty he has in understanding the policy on original research. Just clarifying this matter a little further for you. FNMF 03:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize for the affront, and thank you for responding civilly. I was not assuming bad faith, I assure you, as I will try to explain: The timing of the request was critical. These "checkuser logs" are kept for a maximum of 30 days, and Asmodeus's last post had been 27 or so days. Guettarda and FeloniousMonk seemed to have disappeared during those days, and posts by IP users which I assumed to be either or both of them showed very strong emotions and lack of clear-thinking, and so I surmised that it might go unnoticed that a checkuser might still be useful in establishing sockpuppetry. Normally, I would have done more analysis, but as your posting history had been brief, I would have had to read quite a number of diffs to suspect a connection. I didn't have that time. So I filed the request as is.

Given that there are various mechanisms for resolving disputes within the wikipedia community, and given that Jimbo is enormously popular and as founding father, his comments are watched and considered by so many, making a personal appeal to Jimbo about a particular issue in a particular article was bad form. Note, "bad form" does not mean not in good faith or wrong. It's like being at the opera house and in the middle of a sopranic marathon, you let rip a loud fart. Okay, maybe that's not a good analogy. But such a thing can be disruptive to the community. If you proved to be a sockpuppet for Asmodeous, the ramifications would have been completely disruptive -- more so than the User:Essjay fiasco, I think. But at least then it would be out in the open. By contrast, if nothing had been done, some of these other users' suspicions would increase, and I could foresee the strong possibility of Jimbo's credibility being undermined by the innuendo that he had helped overrule consensus for the sake of a suspected sockpuppet -- allegations which could never be disproven or answered. So I gambled and filed the case. And braced for the storm.

But oddly, you're not Asmodeus. And I'm glad for it. This means, among other things, that Jimbo can continue to be Jimbo. And you can continue to be you. Just remember that some of these guys take everything real personally. Oh, and oddly enough, after filing the check user, I found my name right below yours, filed by none other than mister FeloniousMonk.

--Otheus 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: JS talk page

Hi! Sorry for the confusion; I mentioned OTRS in my edit summary but forgot that it's not a well-known acronym, hehe (check out OTRS or meta:OTRS for more information). There was an issue that arose whereby sensitive information needed to be immediately removed from plain view. Cheers gaillimh 02:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing! gaillimh 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Langan

Agreed, thx `'mikka 16:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Nelly Furtado

"Crumbsucker, I'm directing this message on your talk page, because you are the only one who is aguing against including Portuguese in the lead paragraph." Not true, read the talk page.

You are right. I thought User:musicpvm was arguing that her ethnicity was notable. May I move the rest of this discussion to the Furtado talk page? --Otheus 11:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Crumbsucker 12:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility and NPA

Care to explain how this edit summary is civil? FeloniousMonk 17:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! User 151.151.'s message is harassing Rednblu. I use "harassment" in the very sense WP policy defines it here -- an attempt to instill fear. His threat, of course, of having an RfC file against him for having filed an RfC, is baseless and fairly empty, and such an empty threat is commonly known as "blowing smoke up one's ass" — a bluff, if you will. It's also suitable given 151.151's choice of metaphor in his edit summary: "fanning the flames". Rather poetic, I think. But if you do block me for that, will Guettarda unblock me? After all, he unblocked Duncharris after he had used "fück off" in an edit summary. In that context, I hardly think "ass" would be offensive. --Otheus 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Though it may be too late, but I have apologized for the uncivil edit summary.. --Otheus 15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that that has been dealt with, I would very much like to have a frank an open discussion with you and Guettarda (and maybe 151.151) on some of our, misunderstandings, for lack of a better term. In your edit summaries you have labeled me as "disruptive", you and 151.151 have said I've had a personal axe to grind, you and 151.151. mentioned "fanning the flames", Guettarda regarded as a personal attack some advice I had given him, and I suppose that's not all of it. So, I would like to enter into some kind of informal mediation with you and Guettarda. Again, this is to try to clear up some misunderstandings -- to try to re-establish good faith between all of us. We are all here to make wikipedia better, and it seems to me we have different ideas about what that involves and what methods are good for the project. I would like us to discuss these things openly and frankly. Sincerely, --Otheus 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your excuse for your clear incivility in your edit summary fails to impress and is less than morally gratifying. Believe me when I say that if you want to steer clear of running afoul of WP:CIVIL edit summaries like that need to cease. If that is not something you are concerned about then by all means please carry on. FeloniousMonk 01:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) —This is part of a comment by FeloniousMonk , which got interrupted by the following:

I had assumed you had a problem with the word "ass" or something and answered accordingly. It's not so clear to me what you think is clear. Please clarify what you think the word "clear" really means. What is so uncivil about remarking on someone's bluff as "blowing smoke up my ass"? --Otheus 11:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no "misunderstandings" between us to clear up; if I have said you are disruptive that is because I have found you to be disruptive, and when I said you appear to have a personal ax to grind that is because I see no other rational explanation for maintaining 3 attack pages in your user space and then refusing all calls to remove them, compelling the community to do so through MFD. That's by definition disruption. The sole necessary and sufficient condition for you (or any other editor) to avoid being labeled disruptive or vindictive is to not be disruptive or vindictive. No one capable of proving otherwise is so aggrieved. The risks are too high for responsible contributors in making a genuinely libelous claim, since truth cuts both against libel and for libel and the generally dim view the community takes on those who make personal attacks. FeloniousMonk 01:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) —This is part of a comment by FeloniousMonk , which got interrupted by the following:

This is the kind of misunderstanding I want to clarify, the misunderstanding which forms your basis for my being disruptive and having a personal ax to grind is based on.

2. "They were attack pages."
   1. First, the policy of "attack pages" excludes pages which might be reasonably used in an RfC or similar documentation of dispute resolution. That was my intent for these pages -- to resolve the disputes of 58. and 60. in regards to Agapetos_angel. There is nothing wrong in that.
   2. These pages were also "put up or shut up" page to users 58. and 60. from the Sarfati pages. I repeatedly asked them to be specific about their complaints, and this was my "good faith" effort to meet them half-way. Had they failed to meet me half-way, then I could show their cries were empty.
   3. None of the pages attacked you or Guettarda or JoshuaZ in any way. In fact, through them, I was able to clear up the notion that JZ was responsible for the "torture insertion". The only page which might be considered as such was the "notes" page, which was a compilation of activities regarding Guettarda's block log which he asked me to review.
3. "Refusing all calls ..." (to remove them). There was one call and it was yours and I pleaded with you to on this page to first discuss these pages and ask you to remove anything which you saw as personal attacks.
4. "... (to remove them)". You know I cannot remove them. I might be able to blank them, but exactly what does that do? They were not exactly in plain view as it was.

--Otheus 11:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a difficult time taking your conciliatory tone at face value: WP:AGF enjoins us to assume good faith, but not in the presence of evidence to the contrary. And my experience with your unfortunate habit of engaging those you consider opponents on one page in outwardly civil discussion while at the same time agitating and recruiting others to act against them elsewhere constitutes ample evidence to the contrary. Also given your poor response to Guettarda's requests for civility, your creation of the attack pages I mentioned above, and your subsequent disruptive response to their deletion, your creative use of a redirect for hiding more "evidence" on a subpage in your user space ( vs ) and your edit summary that brought me here, you'll forgive me if I say I have yet to see evidence that you are here "to make wikipedia better." So I have no interest in engaging in any further discussion with you other than to help other admins in correcting any further missteps on your part and minimize any further disruption you may cause. It is my personal policy to ignore requests from those that have shown themselves to be using the system to gain advantage in content disputes or personal conflicts or that I consider trolls. Also, I refuse to invest any more of my time if I have significant doubts that the person I am dealing with is being less than genuine. Moving forward if I do respond to one of your comments, it should not be considered as a validation of your claims, but is made for the benefit of other, more earnest, contributors. FeloniousMonk 01:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite your vows to neither assume good faith nor listen, I will answer your points one-by-one.

1. AGF is designed to prevent us from assuming evidence to the contrary is, in fact, such evidence. Every piece of "evidence" that you have shown has been misconstrued, twisted, and bent to assume the worst possible faith.
2. your unfortunate habit of engaging those you consider opponents on one page while at the same time agitating and recruiting others to act against them elsewhere. I have done no such thing.
3. Also given your poor response to Guettarda's requests for civility. I immediately apologized for my wording. Another admin agreed this was not a personal attack but a failure to use tact. What more could I have done?
4. and your subsequent disruptive response to their deletion. It would take a herculean effort to find such a response.
5. your creative use of a redirect for hiding more "evidence" on a subpage in your user space. This is the page I suggested we use to have informal mediation.
6. you'll forgive me if I say I have yet to see evidence that you are here "to make wikipedia better." I might be forgiving if you acknowledge some of my other edits and continuing contributions to work on the {{cleanup}} and {{copyedit}} backlogs.
7. Moving forward if I do respond to one of your comments, it should not be considered as a validation of your claims,'. FeloniousMonk, refusing to actually engage in dialogue with me, which you have never done violates everything about Misplaced Pages.

It is very sad that you, FeloniousMonk, are unwilling to engage me in conversation. All you have done is leveled accusations against me associated with vaguely-corresponding diffs.

--Otheus 11:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda Responds

I would very much like to have a frank an open discussion with you and Guettarda - What is there to discuss with you? Not only have you refused to apologise for your personal attacks against me, you went on the put together an attack page. You make "peace offerings", and follow them up with nasty attacking emails. And, outside of discussions directly-related to article content, I really see no reason to interact with with David Irving-apologists and Treblinka-revisionists. Guettarda 02:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, why do you refuse to accept or acknowledge my apologies? Why do you characterize everything I say to you as an attack? Why do you ask me to investigate your block log to see if there is evidence of abuse, and when I do so, call such evidence an attack page? Why do you call me a "Treblinka-revisionist" against all evidence to the contrary? Do you see a difference between an apologist and a balanced "sympathizer"? Do you have no sympathy for those arrested for "speech crimes"? Are you implying that if a family member were arrested for a speech crime, you would disown him or her?

--Otheus 11:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, people who "apologise" while sending nasty email and compiling attack pages aren't apologising. There isn't the slightest hint of anything genuine in your "apology". As for family members - if they were engaging in Holocaust denial, yes, I would disown them. And I definitely would give a family member a lot more leeway than I would give you. Guettarda 12:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you consistently mischaracterize my comments, the timing of such, and refuse to assume good faith? You know you asked me to look into your blocking history, you know these pages were not attacking you in any way, you know that such pages are not illegal under the policies here, you know that my apologies and smiles were sent after all these events -- not "while" or during. You know better than to think me a Holocaust denier simply because I'm sympathetic toward a person who was arrested and jailed for speaking his own (arguably twisted) mind? If you fail to acknowledge any of these, then at least we will know that informal mediation is pointless.

--Otheus 12:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly no, I don't "know better" - I read your comments about Irving, and about Treblinka, and I see a clear pattern. In the US, where hate speech is protected, I can see someone defending the rights of someone to indulge in hate speech. Where hate speech is illegal, there's no general priniciple to defend. Anyway, coupled with your comments on Treblinka, it forms a clear pattern. As for the messages - you sent a peace offering, then a nasty email, then a peace offering - and, quite frankly, I wouldn't know if you sent me another nasty email, since any email from you now goes directly into the trash. All I have seen is your on-wiki behaviour, which is still full of sniping. Guettarda 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, thank you very much for responding. I really do appreciate it. I humbly apologize for declaring that you know certain things, when it's now clear that you didn't, or at least, had a very different idea. Please allow me to set the record straight on these things.

First, on David Irving and freedom of speech -- As an American, I believe in the principle of free speech, not just the "convenient" expression of it in Constitutional Law. The only remedy to false, wrong, or hate speech is ... more speech. I cringe at the term "hate speech" -- the term itself is morally corrupt, as it is used through intimidation to prevent speech itself. I see the Irving case as a continuation of the erosion in global civil discourse, an erosion that may ultimately lead to the kind of protests that were apparent after the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy. It was the irony of the coincidence of these facts -- first the protests, and then shortly after that, the Irving arrest case -- which sparked my interest in this. Thus, my 2nd post ever on a talk page: .

First off, the context. I am evaluating the current situtation (16:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)) with the Muslim violent reaction and economic boycotts of the Danes for a Danish newspaper printing cartoons of Mohommad. Does the fact that Islam bans the reproduction of images of Mohommad mean that a Danish newspaper is engaging in hate-speech? Eith equal measure, how does Europe regard Holocaust deniers. Clearly, with Irving, it is to imprison him.

This is particularly ironic, since I am an American, living in Austria. I may have a chance to interview Mr. Irving myself when I visit Graz next month. However, I myself am banned from denying or even questioning the holocaust. I'm even banned from questioning whether I can question the Holocaust.

So that piqued my interest in this article. My hope is that I culled away material that could be inflammatory on either side of this debate, while maintaining verifiable facts.

Here I am, newcomer to Austria, an American proud of the Constitution (though not proud of the US' record in sticking with it) and Europe is fretting over the Muslim reaction to exercising its freedom of speech while jailing another for exercising his. --Otheus 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On Treblinka. Please review those diffs again. Basically, I am contending the accuracy of someone's unattributed interpretation of the Hoefle telegram. At the time, the article said reads (uncited, unattributed)

"The Höfle Telegram listed 713,555 Jews killed in Treblinka through the end of December, 1941."

Someone posted to the Treblinka talk page the transcript of this telegram to the Talk page before it got to the Telegram's article page. According to my interpretation at the time, the article says that until the end of 1942, "71355" Jews "stood" (german stand if a verb). In my post, I note that 71355 is probably an error ("gut instinct"), since the calculation implies 713555, and the calculation would have been done by hand (I doubt calculators were that common in '42). But my main point is that if this number of Jews were standing at the end of 1942, they had 9 months to kill them, and as a sanity check, I translate that in deaths per minute. It's a ghastly and grisly number -- but to the defiance of skeptics, far from impossible.

Finally, the timing of my messages to you. Before you left, I tried to clear up our misunderstanding on these talk pages. You rebuffed my apology, I tried again; you asked me to show you where the apology was. I did that. But you left WP without acknowledging one way or the other. Very shortly after you blanked your pages, I sent the email. After you returned to wikipedia, I added the smile -- the first peace offering, which you removed. Then I posted the second smile. So perhaps you received the email after you returned, or perhaps you are referring to my first attempt at a peace offering as the one on this talk page, the one which you never accepted.

Concerning that email: I truly regret the condescending tone. I know it may not do much good to say this now, but at the time, in my email, I was attempting to be magnanimous. I realize now I should have just kept my mouth shut. I truly regret sending it. --Otheus 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Date links

Hi! Thanks for the contact. No problem... I'm using an automated program which doesn't let me put in my own edit summary.

I've been using the program for quite some time, but I got hold of it the same time everybody else did when there was a debate about this (I haven't got the link I'm afraid! It's been so long!).

Date links are fine, so long as it spells out a full date, such as February 23 1984. It is not suitable to link stand-alone dates such as February, 19th century or 1901. That is, unless the article is about time or timeframes, or really requires the date to establish WP:CONTEXT (Back To The Future for example).

The consensus was based upon a combination of WP:CONTEXT, WP:DATE and WP:BTW. Featured articles use this system, but it is unused for the most part of Misplaced Pages, due to people linking years at the first chance they get! Hope that helps somewhat. Jhamez84 10:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and for the links. I'm partial toward creating them because it allows automatic creation of back-links from that year to the article. Further, from the guidelines you provided, it's still not clear to me why linking years is incorrect (or correct). Currently, the manual of style on years does not address the matter of whether these links should be there or should be removed. Also, currently, WP:CONTEXT#Dates says about stand-alone years:

Stand alone years do not need to be linked but some users prefer it, and some users prefer to link (with a piped link) to articles formatted as "year in subject" such as 1441 in art, 1982 in film, and 18th century in United States history.

But do not need to be linked is different than should be removed. I don't feel compelled to revert such links, but might I suggest you see if a newer version of this tool has an option to disable that particular feature, in cases where it might not be seen as helpful? --Otheus 10:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

MFD

As you requested, I have closed this MFD and added the Speedy deletion tag to the page. An administrator should be executing the request shortly. Regards, Navou / _contribs 12:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Innsbruck

Hello Otheus You asked me if I'm from Innsbruck, the answere is yes...I was born and live there since 24 years. But why are you asking for ?
--Lukas A. Mall 06:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ancash Region

Hi Otheus, thanks for helping me with my writing. It's very well appreciate. However I did some minor changes to your copy editing. Would you please take a look and tell me what you think about them? Thanks, --Evelyn Zuñiga 21:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Black hair

I was feeling charitable so I only tagged the most dubious claims and left the less controversial stuff alone, though it basically seemed like all OR. (I guess the bits that link to other articles - e.g. black Irish, models of migration - is not OR.) That being said, I think the unreferenced tag at the top is probably a good thing. Calliopejen1 12:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Mercora

Can you please check Mercora and give me an opinion on whether it is in good enough condition to close the cleanup taskforce project on this article? Thank you. RJFJR 14:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Still needs some minor copy-editing, but yes, you can close the task, I think. --Otheus 14:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I closed it. Thanks. RJFJR 14:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

lost password

sadly, i never gave wikipedia my email address... hopefully my friend will remember one of these days and i can switch back! Calliopejen1 22:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that's a problem. You might consider copying your old user page and talk to your new one, and inserting "#redirects" as appropriate. If you don't know how to do this, I can do it for you, with your permission and blessing. --Otheus 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Gates of Ishtar

Thanks, Leon. Your comments moved to Talk:Gates of Ishtar. --Otheus 07:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors

Thanks for your message, Otheus. I hope I joined the League properly! Peace. (MuzikJunky 05:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Michael Schumacher

Hi Otheus. I notice you are currently copyediting Michael Schumacher. You may wish to tread carefully around the "Debut" section, where Eddie Jordan compares Schumacher and Damon Hill - there was a huge controversy over the wording of that section a couple of months back - see Talk:Michael_Schumacher#Continued_vandalism_of_the_debut_section. Regards. -- DH85868993 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Shit. Thanks for the heads-up, but it's too late!!! :) How do you think it is now? If it will draw fire, I'll revert that change (original is still in comments). --Otheus 16:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC) .

Michael Schumacher

Thanks for your work on copyediting Michael Schumacher. Just saw your note on Eddie Jordan's comments on Michael Schumacher. Yup, that's exactly what Eddie said: Schumacher (who drove for him in only one race in 1991) was clearly better than Senna (who drove for him for one race in 1983) and Hill (who drove for him for two seasons, but only seven years later). Which is an excellent example of Jordan's normal logic! We had a big discussion about it on the talk page, which I don't suggest you go read as it's boring and long! I think we actually eventually decided on removing that bit, but the content of the article has been the subject of long (and sometimes unpleasant) arguments and I suspect we're all a bit fed up with it at present. Cheers. 4u1e 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this isn't as bad as editing a page on evolution or on someone related to intelligent design! ;) --Otheus 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that bad, but pretty bad, he seems to be one of those people of whom everyone has a view that they know is right, even without a reference, and which must be added. At some point I also ought to do something about the references, which are an eclectic selection of random websites which supported the point being made at the time, which is bass ackwards in terms of writing an article. Hey ho. :S 4u1e 17:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Locked In Time question

Good afternoon!

I made a mistake in adding back those categories. I have replaced them with Category:Young adult novels . I've been working on this list. I simply wasn't thinking. My apologies. --JustAGal 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dowsing

Yeah, I know. See the note I left a few days ago on Pjacobi's talk page. — BillC 16:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you keep an eye on his sandbox page and my comments. User talk:68.184.6.80/sandbox/Dowsing. --Otheus 16:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

LoCE proofreading

I've noticed you have become involved with WP:LoCE, which is great. However, I wanted to point out to you the "Proofread complete" section; when you complete a proofread on a copyedited article (as you did for Jericho, Kansas and Waite Hockin Stirling, please make sure you copy the item from the "Ready for final proofread" into the "Proofread complete" section. I have done this for you for Jericho, Kansas, but would appreciate it if you could do it for the other article. If you are unsure how to go about doing this, there is a list of instructions at the top of that section, or feel free to ask. Thanks! —Daniel Vandersluis 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Perhaps the League would like to work on making their instructions a tad bit more obvious and not burrying them under subheadings of other sections--Otheus 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I didn't write the instructions, but I'll see what I can do about making them more visible. —Daniel Vandersluis 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Davkal

Not exactly accurate. Davkal said explicitly that it was "my" behavior he was reporting. And I did not say that he made legal threats, I said that he borderlined on doing so with the excessive claims regarding libel and the chilling effect he was attempting to impose. ⇒ SWATJester 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see further commentary on my talk page: ⇒ SWATJester 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we ran into a miscommunication. I wasn't saying Davkal actually violated NLT, or I would have blocked him immediately (as a law student, legal threats are the thing I take seriously on wikipedia), but instead I said his comments bordered on it. My point appears to be proved by his alleged contacting of the foundation. ⇒ SWATJester 15:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Participles

Snigger. Words are fun to play with! Thanks again for your work on M Schumacher. Cheers. 4u1e 06:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your apology

Thanks, I appreciate it. Jayjg 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

moved from user-page:

--- moved from user-page:

The changes in the article on Sergio Fiorentino look good. Thank you for the excellent editing. -- TBHecht, 15 April 2007

--VeronikaMM 04:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and a note about the copyedit template

Hi Othueus! Just wanted to say "thanks" for your work in the League, and to give a quick reminder. Please place the WP:LoCE template in the body of the article's talk page, under the heading "Copyedit". We had some feedback from article editors and League members (see the League's talk archives) who felt it was better to take this approach, rather than place the template at the top, because it is less intrusive and more accurate in the sense of the article's "history" of edits. Thanks! Galena11 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Galena! Thanks for the feedback. I noted that you started working on my recently-posted list of "needs proofreading". These were articles that I have worked on over the past few months, not aware of the "newer" instructions about placing the LoCE notice on the bottom of the page, nor the usage of the project page to note what pages have been worked on. That's why I added so many articles to that section.

Following along this line of thinking, I'm the one who has asked for a discussion on the project's talk page concerning a more useful approach to using our templates. --Otheus 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, and I think your suggestions for the overhaul are good ones. :o) Galena11 19:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Request For Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/David Irving, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidudeman (talk • contribs) 22:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Copyedi-proofreading project page

You deleted my entry for proofreading of that article and added your own, I believe. That is why I posted it. It's a bit silly (my comment) though, so i'm removing it. Sorry. Erythromycin 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I moved the article from to be proofread to complete; I didn't realize I was to copy what you had put there. I fixed my mistakes. Thanks for drawing attention to it. --Otheus 09:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

fact vs nor

Yes one can put fact in if one thinks there is a citation. I did not think there would be a citation. it was worded very much like one person's opinion. The Ayn name should probably have at least 2 cites to related it to ainos though becaue what if the opinion of the other author is not substantiated? then we are perpetrating fiction, which might still be the problem --Buridan 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• shrug* The citation seems to be pretty substantiated. ARI generally wouldn't put something on their website that might later prove false. That would be very very embarrassing for them, as they see themselves the guardians of everything that is Ayn Rand. --Otheus 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Composed of

Otheus -- no hard feelings, but even in hindsight uw-vandalism3 seems like a strong position to start with. Had I been wrong, shouldn't my user warnings have started at the 1 level (WP:AGF) unless there was reason not to assume good faith? -- JHunterJ 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to my world

Though we may have slight (or even major) differences of opinion, it will be nice to have someone else who looks over these articles. --ScienceApologist 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)