Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Str1977 (talk | contribs) at 22:42, 19 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Unlocked?

Let's agree to stop the comstant reverting. Mika, Freethinker, Gio, etc. (whether it's all one person or several)...can you please discuss your ideas here and gain a consensus before reverting or adding what is obviously disputed material? If you can agree, we can get this page unlocked. KHM03 18:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for a checkuser; I would prefer that the page stay locked until we get an answer back on that. Tom Harrison 19:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but it could take days or weeks. Too, too bad. KHM03 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications

Hi all,

I am new here and am trying to follow the discussion in this article. However to do so requires a little clarification. Would someone please tell me: 1.) Who is this Giovanni and what did he do? 2.) What is a sock puppet besides what I use to entertain my nephews? Christian_Historybuff aka Steve Christian Historybuff

Hello, and welcome. Here's the page about sockpuppets on Misplaced Pages. As to who Giovanni33 is, that's a more difficult question. You can conveniently sign your name with a shortcut, ~~~~. This produces: Tom Harrison 16:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Weclome Steve, contrary to what some might say we don't bite newbies. To answer your questions:

1. Giovanni33 is an editor who appeared at this article a few weeks ago, making some edits to the history section. These turned out to be controversial, but Giovanni persisted in reverting back to his version - a behaviour that eventually got him blocked (after having broken the 3-Revert-Rule more than once).
2. Around the same time, various new editors appeared as well, all supporting Gio's edits and views and reverting back to his versions. These are suspected to be either Sockpuppets (Gio using a different user account) or Meatpuppets (friends of his he has called in to support him), all with the objective of circumventing the 3RR and blocks. Giovanni always denied any connection with these other editors (though now Belinda Gong turned out to be his wife). The latest of these newcomers was Freethinker99. The following edit clearly indicates that he is the same Giovanni or at least knows him (which he denied before). This obvious evidence for Gio's tactics has stirred up quite some tempers (including mine).

Str1977 16:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Why do you not simply delete Giovanni33's Revisions so that nobody can ever revert back to them again? Christian_Historybuff aka Steve Christian Historybuff

That's technically possible, but we don't do that except in extreme cases where there might otherwise be legal problems. It wouldn't be appropriate in this case. Tom Harrison 21:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting parts of the article history (which only administrators can do) is generally thought of as a fairly extreme measure. The article history is a record of contributors, and we do want to make sure that everyone is properly credited; even editors whose editing behaviour is... challenging... should still credit for their contributions. We make exceptions, but, all told, it is a lot simpler to revert a revert than it is to eliminate every instance of the version being reverted to. We have deliberately chosen to always err on the side of assuming good faith, and there are many, many ways in which this philosophy leads us to dealing with annoyances in a less than perfectly efficient way. Hope that answers your question. Jkelly 21:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Baptists Not Protestant

I would like to find out how to enter a change in the text of church history that indicates baptists are Protestants. This is a misrepresentation and one whose correction extends back to at least 1947 when LIFE magazine printed the same error.

How do I submit a change? Every time I edit the section to correct the error the correction gets dumped. Granttc 20:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that it keeps getting changed because Baptists are Protestants. KHM03 20:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Baptists are not Protestants they existed in doctrine and practice long before the Protestant Reformation began. Baptists were, in fact persecuted extensively, by Zwingli, Calvin, Luther and their adherents.

Who decides what is removed and edited. As near as I can tell there is no historic or scholarly support for their inclusion on the page as Protestant. Is it necessary to include references to move Baptists out of Protestantism since there is no reference outlined to support their inclusion? Granttc 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Trust me: Baptists are Protestants. If you want to give me YOUR evidence that they are not, I will be happy to refute it. --Midnite Critic 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See Landmarkism. Presumably that is what this is about. Jkelly 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few churches in the US that regard themselves as nothing more than Christian. They maintain that they are "not protesting anything," but are merely worshiping as Christians the way the New Testament teaches. They eschew the idea of 'denomination' and are usually congregational. I don't know if the Baptists take this line of reasoning. As JKelly's link suggests, it probably depends on which Baptists we are talking about exactly. I think there is more than one group. I suppose it also depends on how 'protestant' is defined.

Anyway, this is all 'original research;' I have no citations to offer, though I'm sure some could be found; but I do not think we should get into this level of detail in the general survey article on Christianity. Most people would just say Baptists are protestants. We should say that too, and leave further elaboration to a more specific article. Tom Harrison 18:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Granttc: What makes you believe that Baptists aren't Protestant? Yes, the Anabaptists were persecuted by the leading Reformers, no question. But why do you believe the Baptists pre-date the 16th century? KHM03 20:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We have the same issue at Church of Christ. The solution is to fairly represent both sides: "A minority of Baptists reject the name 'Protestant,' asserting that the Baptist faith existed throughout history and before even the Catholic Church, which they consider to be a corruption of the primitive church as a result of the Great Apostasy. The majority of Baptists and religious scholars, however, categorize Baptists as Protestant." Simple. And informative; it is a fact that some people believe this, and it's interesting to know. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That's really why? I'd like to get Granttc's take, since he brought it up. KHM03 20:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We have the same issue with a number of Restorationist groups (mostly very small), all of whom claim that they are not part of Protestantism, either because of a heritage they claim to trace back before the reformation or because they claim that they were founded expressly by divine command and are therefore the true church. To list them all would pad the intro out to way too long, and the basic premise would still stand; that by and large Christianity is divided into the three groups mentioned. DJ Clayworth 22:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Anabaptists trace their heritage back to the first century by claiming any and all believers in Believer's Baptism. A book called the Martyr's Mirror, published in the 17th or 18th century in Holland and later translated and published in the U.S., attempts to document such cases through the centuries and tie them together, and of course it especially details their struggles and persecutions during the Reformation. Wesley 23:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Any group that adheres to "Sola Scriptura" (and hence including these non-denominational but excluding various Restorianist groups) is Protestant by definition, even if they were persecuted by other Protestants. And yes, the Baptists have their origin in the Reformation. There were no Baptists until the 16th century. Str1977 00:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been a Baptist my entire life, and furthermore a member of several different Baptist churches of various varities. I have never heard any of them object to being labeled "protestant". Effectively at this point in history, protestant no longer has to do with protesting anything. It simply is a label for the branch of Christianity which is not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Baptists clearly fit in that category. This is a simple fact, regardless of if some Baptist ideas may predate the reformation. Vonspringer 19:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Any reason why I can't lift protection on this article?--MONGO 01:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See here. KHM03 01:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason. The blocks placed on Giovanni33, BelindaGong, and Freethinker99 exire in about one hour from now, so that means that Giovanni gets another nine reverts in the next twenty-four hours. An excellent reason not to unprotect. AnnH 01:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Really, so are you admitting here that it is permissable that myself, Belinda, and Freethinker, all are allowed up to 3 reverts each? Wow, thanks for the change in policy. I'm sure Belinda (not sure if I can convince Freethinker to join again), will be happy to hear that. Thanks. Giovanni33 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I am definitely not saying that you and Belinda (if you really are two people) are allowed to have three reverts each. I was saying that given your track record, it was quite likely that you'd take three (or more) reverts each. I was referring merely to the technical possibility of doing so once the your blocks had been lifted and the page unprotected. AnnH 23:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I see, a technical possibility is what you meant (although you did say "that means that Giovanni gets another nine reverts.). As a linguist I'm sure you can see what is being communicated is not true: No, I don't get another 9 reverts. Sure, anyone can violate the policy and get blocked but that is true for everyone so its not a logical point. Don't we all have the technical ability to revert as much as we want from our own IP address (of course we will be blocked as a consequence)? The fact is, as you well know, that Belinda, Freethinker, and myself, are all counted as one person, so if any one of us has a cumulative total of over 3 reverts we all get blocked. Therefore how does the clarification of point above make any sense? Its not logical. Giovanni33 23:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem...I protected it without anyone asking me to do so, or a request to do so to my knowledge. I'm not a big fan of page protection, but just wanted to make it clear that I wanted everyone to not feel as though I had acted unilaterally by protecting the page. I am also the blocking admin of the "editors" in question, so I also wanted to ensure all my bases are covered.--MONGO 01:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line: The article has become a royal mess and needs trimming and care. We need to arrive at some kind of understanding. KHM03 03:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser

According to CheckUser , MikaM and Kecik are not the same user, and neither one is Giovanni33. Tom Harrison 02:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jus so everyone knows...all the checkuser proves is that they are different IP's. Checkuser is not needed if other evidence of sockpuppetry are apparent.--MONGO 02:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33's edits

I really don't see a problem with him having editted it.... it doesn't seem that anything is cited at all for either side, and he seemed to simply be more expansive and without seeing sources, it seems his text is comparatively neutral. Before putting all these protections on the page, why not actually cite some of your information, and ask him to do the same?

P.S. editting because I'm having some problems at the moment..... says I'm logged in but not giving the correct signiature

User:King_Vegita 05:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi King_Vegita, and welcome. I'm glad to see a new user who has a longer history here, for obvious reasons. I have cited extensively for my side, but its been archived now. I don't mind doing so again. When sources where objected to, I found new sources. This article has changed a lot since I started to work on it, but it’s been a real uphill battle. Basically my POV is to seek is for a historical context for the emergence of Christianity, including the fact that there was no one Christianity, that it's in part a hybridization and development of various older religions. I wanted the influences, noted by scholars, included which all serve to contextually the religion in its time and thus give understanding to its emergence and nature in continuity and relation to other belief systems. Specifically, that means a Jewish context, ofcourse (no need to get into the various groups, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes), but also the Pagan context, which is largely marked by syncretism, but also with clear distinct threads-- prominent ones being the cults of the Roman State, the mystery religions, and the schools of Geek philosophy. For me to have this presented is important as it gives balance and accuracy reflecting the modern understandings of the development of Christianity.

With regard to the language, this article was using the Wikepeaia narrative voice to speak from the perspective of the Church, or rather a one true Christianity, which I have endeavored to change in keeping with NPOV policy. For example, see a clear remnant of the old version with this POV coloring that is in the current article: "Christianity also had to deal with internal heresies, especially Gnosticism..." This is problematic because there "heresies" also contained Christians, like the Gnostic Christians. They are only heretics from the POV of some Christians, sometimes being only a matter of one vote determining who would be branded as not being "true." Misplaced Pages should not take sides, but report objectively. Compare with my NPOV language: "The church dealt with other versions of Christianity by defining these beliefs as heresies." The fact is that there were different strains of Christians and the one version, a particularly intolerant one (which should be also noted for historical accuracy in this connection--another point in disput here), merged with state power and tried to exterminate its rivals, sometimes killing thousands. I have plenty of mainstream sources to support all my claims.Giovanni33 22:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that even though this article is locked no one wants to use the talk pages to work out these differences from the other side. Instead is used for distracting and counter productive socketpuppety allegations, which are all false, btw. You cant keep up all this smoke forever...Giovanni33 13:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A Simple Question (1)

Just a question about the users on this page. Is there a single atheist, agnostic, freethinker or secular academic who habitually contributes to the Christianity page ?

If there is, would you mind answering a second question: Do you feel that you are treated well by the half dozen or so contributors who have previously been identified as the “clique”, “cabal”, “DEWCs” or “Troll Confederation” of unusually devout believers?Trollwatcher 10:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you question is meant to be rhetorical, but it should be obvious that the editors who don't ideologically conform are not treated well in the final analysis, despite pretense to the contrary. It's one thing for everyone to recognize their bias and work collaborately with ohters of different Pov's to produce a NPOV article, but its another when there is abuse of power, bullying, and double stanards, and accusation attacking the user instead of the substance of their arguments.Giovanni33 22:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any user of any faith or lack of faith who has followed Misplaced Pages policy and been badly treated by the "devout believers". AnnH 23:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse not, since you are not on the receiving end of the bad treatment. From your Pov you don't see or think anyone is being treated badly but those who feel they are victims would feel differently, and see it from their Pov. As an example, cases of work place harassment, as policy, its usually the feelings of the victim which determin if it exists or not, not what the perpetrator thinks, or doens't see. Giovanni33 23:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC

Giovanni, perhaps I should have put the words who has followed Misplaced Pages policy in italics and bold, but I thought it might seem a bit sarcastic, and that it was sufficiently obvious without the emphasis. Whether someone who breaks policy, is begged to stop for a long time before finally being reported, and is uncovered in an act of duplicity is treated badly when he's reported and blocked may be a POV. But my post didn't comment on whether or not you, Belinda, and Freethinker (whether that's one person or two or three) had been treated badly. My post was saying that to the best of my knowledge, no innocent users had been treated badly by devout Christians. Could we move on now? This page is meant to be kept for discussing possible improvements to the article. AnnH 23:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you meant. No clarification was needed. Repeating yourself doesn't change my response, above. Ofcourse, you don’t feel that way. But that is your Pov. I would bet that every other poster who was not a devout believer (even those who you would be generous enough to term "innocent") would also feel they were not treated fairly. Case in point is Sophia, who you admit did nothing wrong, yet, she stated she felt ganged up on, bullied, and has now left in protest over what she feels has been an unfair attack against everyone who doesn’t conform to a Christian Pov. I know you don't agree, and I don't expect you to, but that does not change the validity of how the other side feels--"innocent" or not. Although I think it's interesting that you implicitly admit that those who are found to violate a rule are not treated well or fairly. Giovanni33 23:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't admit any such thing, implicitly or explicitly. For the record, I do not think that anyone who broke the rules was treated unfairly. But could you please let go and move on. You behaved badly. You knowingly broke rules. You tried to deceive other editors. You were given a great deal of tolerance with your massive 3RR violations, simply because we didn't want to bite newcomers. You were blocked. You're now unblocked. You need to work on regaining our trust, instead of behaving as if you are the victim. AnnH 23:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you didn't mean what you said (again). The question was clearly if any user was treated badly or unfairly. Your response, tellingly, was: I'm not aware of any user...who has followed Misplaced Pages policy and been badly treated by the "devout believers"."This logically implies that you are aware of users who have not followed policy that were treated badly or unfairly. Maybe its not what you intended to say (I don't think anyone would admit to that openly if they were the perpetrator), but it does slip which can be seen my using logical semantical analysis. As a linguist, I'm sure you can agree that what is implicitly said is there, even though you may not have meant to say that (I assume good faith). Back to the point, I don't think I have ever acted badly (except at the very beggining when I did violate the 3RR rule but never again after my first block for it), and since then I have followed policy. But, I do see myself as a victims of attacks motivated by Pov differences. And, so do others, who did not break any rules. Giovanni33 01:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I meant exactly what I said. I intended to make a statement about innocent users. I intended to say nothing about those guilty of wrongdoing, such as yourself, simply because I didn't want to get into a long discussion. However, since you seem to want further clarifications, I'll state that I think your blocks have been absolutely justified. You violated 3RR long past the "very beginning", but weren't reported for it. (Have you ever wondered why?) You were aware of the policy on meatpuppetry, as it was often discussed here, and as it's in WP:SOCK, which you were asked to read. You even suggested that I was a meatpuppet, while all the time the Belinda account was reverting to your version. And that doesn't even take into account the Freethinker story. Even if your account is true, it means that while you were blocked from editing, you were showing a friend how to edit Misplaced Pages, and he reverted (or partially reverted) three times to something you favoured. So I don't think you have been treated badly or unfairly, but I do think your behaviour has led to quite a lot of unpleasantness for you and for others. The three people who have opposed you the most have a long history of collaborating well with people with different POVs — people who follow the rules and behave with integrity. Now, could we move on, please? AnnH 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Another simple question: Do you really think that this rain shower of personal attacks is in any way helpful to the article?

Re your first question: I don't think we segregate according to ideology and I have no problem with atheists, agnostics or freethinkers (whether academic or not) constructively contributing to this article. There's no point in asking about "Secular" as they either don't exist (unless you are talking about a the kind of Catholic clergy that goes by that name) or all are secular. Str1977 11:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself secular, a secular humanist. I guess I don't exist. Most of academia, by its very nature adhering to the principals of the scientific method (even with social sciences such as history) is likewise secular in its presuppositions and its methodology (hence stories of miracles are not interpreted as true when more logical explainations in keeping with material explanations are readily available).Giovanni33 22:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

By secular academic, I'm pretty sure that he means objective and believing that religion should be taken objectively in describing it, so that they would write NPOV, not from a Christian POV. And they do exist, btw.

KV 18:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a defintion: sec·u·lar·ism ( sµk“y…-l…-r¹z”…m) n. 1. Religious skepticism or indifference. 2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.The definition that Star1977 accepts is another meaning, a minor one, not the main one. I think he knows that. :) Giovanni33 01:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Trollwatcher: Please define "freethinker". Also, are you implying that a person of faith cannot make objective edits? Additionally, regarding your labelling of "the clique", "cabal", "DEWCs" or "Troll Confederation of unusually devout believers", please review WP:CIV, WP:EQ and WP:NPA (regarding religious intolerance as well as your username). KHM03 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

KHM03, if you get any dictionary you will see "freethinker" is defined. When I open the American Heritage Dictionary I find this, :free·think·er ( fr¶“th¹ng“k…r) n. 1. One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. free “think“ing adj. n. About persons of faith and objectivity, I think the point that should be acknowleged is that (which I made before only to be called a bigot for doing so), all ideological schools of thought contain their respective bias; recognizing this fact is an important part in avoiding bias. The trick is to have multiple sources from multiple POVs that are all hightly placed, respected sources. The literature of any single professed belief system (or authors who are adherents to the same belief system), would tend to emphasis some things and de-emphasis others aspects, even in scholarly work, in accordence with their interests, with is a reflection of their POV. Sometimes is subtle other times it's not. Good scholarly work minimizes this with a variety of techniques (footnotes, using the real and best arguments of the other side, etc). This is rarely done, and a poor substitute for looking at other authors of anohter Pov who can speak for themselves. This is why all the exclusively Christian sources you provided KHM03 did not even address the issue of non-Christian influences; their absesnse of mentioning it does not negate its validity. Pointing out this fact, that referencing only writers with a Christian POV introduces a recognizable bias in what is covered and what is ignored is a valid point, and I think it not an attack on Christians. I have an POV and bias, and so do you. We should all realize that and work towards incorporating each others perspectives with NPOV language. Christians, just everyone else, do not become immune from the colorings of their own ideological lens. Objectivity is utopian. Giovanni33 22:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless I have missed something, I have not heard that all sources should be limited to Christian sources. There has been talk about have reputable sources or experts in a respective field. This is a legitimate goal. Yes, it can be abused and we all need to be aware of this. No side should be the sole judge of defining the legitimacy of a source. If you have one, propose it; if there is disagreement make the case strongly...once. Let's than cooperatively decide these issues. If necessary, we can vote on it. There is also a need that minority views are kept to a minority position in the article. They should be mentioned, but not repeated or to a degree that they outway or equal the majority opinion. Censoring here is unacceptable. Further, I have heard quite enough of private conversations on this page. If the conversation does not deal specifically with the article and how to make it better, please take the conversation to your personal discussion pages. On behalf of everyone, I collectively off apologies from everyone else. Let this be water under the bridge and let's assume good faith of everyone else. Lastly, if anyone is caught using a sock again, I would vote they be forever banned from WIKI. I find it a repugnant practice. I don't like accusations and don't want to hear more about it. If there is an issue take it up on their private page and let admin's deal with it. Enough said; let's move forward on making the article better. Storm Rider 00:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the motion put forward by StormRider, wit the proviso that given that I can prove BelindaGong and Freethinker are separate individuals, they should not be considered my socketpuppets. Its perfectly ok to invite others here who have the same POV. Despite the fact that Ann has told me this is not allowed, I note that AnnH herself joined Misplaced Pages in the same way: "Hi, Jdavidb, I'm really here to wish you a happy Christmastide...thank you for bringing me to Misplaced Pages. I think it was you, wasn't it, who posted something on some blog last April, appealing for people to come to Misplaced Pages...and I know that to you, at least, I don't have to say "Happy Holidays". A Saviour is born for us. Alleluia! AnnH (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)"

] We should be welcoming of new users, even if they agree with a secular Pov, and even if, heaven forbid (no pun intended) they know me. Giovanni33 01:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I joined Misplaced Pages after I saw something written by someone with whom I had no prior contact, and whose name I didn't even know. I have never met him outside of Misplaced Pages, and have had little interaction with him on Misplaced Pages, though I like what I've seen. I only discovered later, looking back, that it was he who had written that appeal. We have never really been involved with the same articles at the same time. I don't know how you can think that bears any resemblance to your wife (if she is your wife) arriving to revert to your version on every article where you met resistence, to vote for whatever you wanted, and to agree with you on the talk pages, while you both carried on a pretence of not knowing each other. Do you think Jimbo would think the two situations were similar. And please, that's a rhetorical question. I don't want an answer. You're just clogging up the talk page with your grievance. This is meant to be for discussing improvements to the article. If you want to jump to conclusions and make false accusations, do it on your own talk page (which I see you've already done), not here. Thanks. AnnH 01:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

All that is besides the point. I think its ok to invite a friend with who shares a similar POV. You don't think that is correct, from what you said on my talk page. But, I note that is how you found this place. An invitation on a religious blog. Is it really worse if I personally invite someone I know is of good quality, an expert in many fields, compared to posting an open invitation to Atheist and Secular blogs and other sites? The particularities are not important, the general principal is. Its not wrong to invite someone of your own POV. It doen't interest me what connections you have with other users who share your POV as long as they are really different users. For good faith, I assume they are (even when you assume the exact pattern you noted between Belinda and myself). Also, I dont think making a pretense of knowing or not knowing someone personally is relevant in anyway. They each speak for themselves. I have not made false accusations, but you have. Belinda is not a sockepuppet, neither is Freethinker, and neither are any of the new users who have been likewise attacked. I suggest we stick to improving the article instead of all this sockepuppetry accusations. Let the userchecks speeak for themselves and lets have that kind of stuff done on other pages, not talk pages to articles I'm trying to improve (which is has happened by introducing these speculative based attacks on this page and other article pages where I've I'm working). Giovanni33 02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, first you make a false accusation, in public, that I did something which I said was not allowed. Then, when I show that that is not the case, you say that it's beside the point. Of course, it's beside the point. This whole topic is off the point, and should never have been brought here in the first place. Reading about Misplaced Pages on a blog — and by the way, it wasn't a religious blog — coming here as a result, having an entirely separate editing pattern from the person who wrote on that blog, and discovering later that it was that person is not by the wildest stretch of the imagination meatpuppetry. Having your wife join, while pretending not to know her, and having her follow you around to revert to your version whenever you met with opposition is by definition meatpuppetry. For the record, in all the time I have been at Misplaced Pages, I have never ever reverted any page to Jdavidb's version.

I'm going to bed now. I'll be thrilled if I find tomorrow that someone has archived this page, including Giovanni's accusations. AnnH 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would but I have to say this much:

Gio, you are allowed to invite a friend to WP, regardless whether he shares your POV, but you are not allowed to use him to circumvent 3RR or a block. And you certainly not allowed to lie to your fellow Wikipedians about your connection to that friend. (Assuming that you two are indeed two different people). Str1977 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Its good to hear I can invite a friend here. I thought the idea that I couldn't, couldn't be right. I didn't use my friends account to revert or get around the block, only to edit on my own talk page. If he wants to rv or make changes, I think he is allowed, or should be allowed. Lastly, the the 3rd time, I did not lie about him. Infact my actions, and then words, suggest I was quite open about not even trying to hide his connection to me. Need we go over these points again? Giovanni33 12:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Lying about that connection for 23 minutes and answering only after you were found out is not what I would consider "quite open". Your invitees might edit as they wish, but who tells us that you weren't at his house then also, that you didn't point him to something (and given you share one POV the result was predictable wasn't it). FT also appeared claiming to have read through all the discussions (not mentioning your "help"), but for that "he" is to blam not "you". And that's all still assuming (against my own conviction) that you are not one and the same. Str1977 12:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you are spreading you lies against me by making the false accusations that I lied, even though you took this back on another article you spread it here, again. This shows bad faith, and that your using this to attack me. You make the lie here by spinning it in this manner. As you very well know my comment was a reference to a list of users asked of me by KH03, which did not include Freethinker. When I saw that Freethinker was later added, in a second line, I edited that to stated honesty that I did know Freethinker. The addition of freethinker in another edit was made by KH03 before I initially responded but I did not see it until after I composed my response to his initial list. I have already explained this before and for you to bring it up proves that you are also using this as bad faith attacks. Shouldn't this page should be about discussing edits to the article? Giovanni33 22:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)