User talk:Anarchangel/26 Sept 08 to 30 June 09

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Re "Vandalism is a serious accusation"

I've replied to your post on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 04:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam

Just wanted to make it clear that I am refraining from pushing the limits of the 3-revert (WP:3RR) rule; the logical conclusion of which, as I understand it, is that the initial editor, which is myself, ends up with their edit intact.
1. Initial edit > 2. 1st revert by 'reverter' > 3. 1st revert by Initial editor > 4. 2nd Revert by 'reverter > 5. 2nd revert by Initial editor > 6. 3nd Revert by 'reverter > 7. 3rd revert by Initial editor.
We are currently at step 4 on the Vietnam page, and I have left a rebuttal of the reverter's reasons for reverting, and I am -very- tempted to take it to the limit of step 7. I am consoling myself by feeling honorable for not doing, what it seems to me, would break the spirit of WP:3RR, and that the page existed for X long without my edit, it can manage a few more days...or weeks, I suppose :o(. Anarchangel (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as well I didn't follow through with that erroneous version of [[WP:3RR}}. Having said that, that particular rule is just an arrow in the quiver of the revert archers; it makes it way too easy to shoot things down. Anarchangel (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you thank you

I try. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines

Hey there. Please read our guidelines about spoiler warnings to avert reversion of your edits. Also, please review WP:EDIT and its sister Help pages about how to correctly use headings that will not be shown in the TOC. Regards So Why 09:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I edited your talk page post

on Talk:Sarah Palin, under "Golden Flurry" section, in an attempt to format as I believe you intended - please let me know if you view this as instrusive. Different editors have differing views on the acceptablity of this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments

I appreciate your efforts. I do not think that admin is being entirely fair, as he/she also blocked me yesterday for a month-old edit on a talk page that many other admins had ignored, that was also political, so we should probably be on the lookout. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin?

Please post at talk. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I raised the same concern re: switching out POV tag for rape kit material and vice versa. Please take a look. Not kosher. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re "Roe v Wade"

I've responded to your post on my talk page. Emw2012 (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

More Palin

Anarchangel, I just reverted your major edit to the Palin biography. Strongly urge that we discuss changes involving anything more than minor typographical issues at this point. Fcreid (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you have me mistaken for someone else, my friend. I was not involved in the original draft of the Stambaugh paragraph, although I did have reservations about the undue weight placed on the concealed weapon part. That aside, I had nothing to do with any research of SB 177, and whether that forced every infant to carry sidearms or whatever. Again, I suspect I'm not the droid you're looking for. Fcreid (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you've somewhere commingled my point of disagreement with that of others. As you may have noted on my page, you're unlikely to find anyone who believes more strongly than I that Americans have misinterpreted the Second Amendment in a truly socially destructive and irresponsible manner. (I live in Washington, DC which may have more killings each day than Iraq now!) Handguns serve no redeeming purpose in the context of the Second Amendment "militia" that even closely offsets their blatant damage caused each day. If it were up to me, federal law would prohibit carrying handguns by anyone except law enforcement and security/military. Production for individual ownership (sport, etc.) would carry a transferable sum in escrow from the minute the handgun is forged by the company until the time it returns to molten metal, in the hope that such an investment inhibits a ten-year old's ability to trade them in the schoolyard. In contrast, I believe the restrictions we place on the responsible purchase, storage and ownership of large-scale weapons, such as assault rifles, tanks and other legitimate weapons of war is overboard. Innocent store clerks aren't killed by assault rifles or tanks, but by concealed handguns. And, heaven forbid, should we ever need to turn back our nation from some *ocracy we didn't invite, handguns aren't going to help us. Anyway, we blog, but I just want to say your apparent fight on Palin's Second Amendment position is improperly focused on me. Fcreid (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Recognition of bold resistance!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		In recognition of your persistent resistance to the McPain propagandists' push to harness the Wiki's core principles and values to a biased agenda. — Writegeist (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

o) TY. Would that I had been more successful. And there is still much to do. Anarchangel (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please AGF

I think this is important enough to raise on your talk page, please AGF [1] Nil Einne (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC) After viewing Yug's contributions, I am utterly convinced that Yug impersonates a non-native English speaker. See my reply on the Talk: 08 page. Anarchangel (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You say you no longer care, but since you continued to make long and (IMHO) baseless accusations before that, I felt it was only write to reply to what you said[2] Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It was right for you to do as you did, believing what you do. I respect your effort to attempt to keep the peace. Hopefully you will discover one day that I am right more than I am wrong, and don't do things for no reason. Anarchangel (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

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 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008.

For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Fallout (series) edits

Hi Anarchangel,
I noticed you reintroduced some edits to the 'Fallout (series)' article which were reverted by another editor with the reason "Edited for style and factual content--old content was completely wrong, and mostly just personal musings". To be honest, I agreed with that editor. The information you introduced isn't really factually based. At the least, it is less factually based than what was there previously. You also made some additional minor edits that seem either nonconstructive (removing the definition of the acronym 'RPG' after the use of the expanded 'role-playing game', changing the link to 'Black Isle Studios' back to the incorrect page 'Black Isle') to the grammatically questionable (changing " . . . and had stronger role-playing characteristics than subsequent two" to " . . . and had notably strong role-playing characteristics, although they were technically tactical role-playing games", an edit that is also factually questionable given, for example, Gamespot's categorization[3].) The same complaint can also be made about your categorization of Brotherhood of Steel as a third-person shooter rather than a action RPG.

Given these concerns I'm going to roll back your recent changes. If you wish to reinstate your PipBoy edits I invite you to post them to the talk page first for comments and rewrites. If you wish to reinstate your genre changes of the games, please also make another topic on the talk page and be sure to cite sources. And I will assume simple user error for getting rid of some of the helpful minor edits, like the BIS link, and assume you will not be reverting those elements again.

If you wish to discuss this specific revert here, feel free to contact me at my talk page or continue the discussion here (I will Watch this page.) If you wish to discuss specific proposed edits to the 'Fallout (series)' page, I invite you to use that article's talk page.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia and happy editing! Matt T. (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if my above edit seemed insulting to you, that was not my intention in any way. However, I'm extremely disappointed you reverted the edits without first discussing your changes. It seems obvious that your edits are in the minority of editors' opinion (which is to say, at least two editors, myself included, have weighed in against your edits,) which should at least give you pause to discuss further edits before you make them unilaterally.

Let's deal with the genre disagreements first. In my opinion, it seems pretty clear cut that the prior genre classifications are correct, largely because they can be cited from external sources. From my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) it seems your argument is "those external sources are wrong, it's obvious I'm right" which does not meet valid Wikipedia criteria for changing information. If you could perhaps cite external, reliable sources for your claims we may have something more to go on, but as of right now my citation to you of Gamespot, one of the largest and most authoritative game news and reviews websites, seems pretty clear-cut.

Now, per your PipBoy edits, I agree that there may be confusion over what his name is exactly, but your phrasing leaves the issue confusing for readers. For examples, you divide up sections of Fallout 1 and 2, where you refer to the character as Fallout Boy, and Fallout 3, where you refer to him as PipBoy (or rather you leave in the entire old section about PipBoy, and simply label it Fallout 3) which seems more confusing that simply stating that he may be referred to by different names. You seem to be editing in counter-arguments to arguments that were never originally raised.

I'm not sure if English is your native language, but if you're ever having any further trouble with your grammar or styling, please feel free to use Wikipedia:Grammar as a resource. There are a number of editors who can help you out with larger edits to make sure they're as clear and concise as can be!

I will, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, wait to try to gain consensus with you before making any unilateral edits to the page, which I fear would cause you to attempt an edit war, which is frowned upon by here at Wikipedia. If we can not resolve this problem, we can bring the dispute to the mediation board and/or the article's talk page for further comments.

To begin, let me propose the following revision of the section in question:

== Pip-Boy/Fallout Boy/Vault Boy ==

The Pip-Boy (Personal Information Processor-Boy) is the brand name of the Vault-Tec computer given to the player early in Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout 3 which serves various roles in quest, inventory, and battle management, as well as presenting player statistics.

The name may also refer to a cartoon character, referred to variously as Pip-Boy, Fallout Boy, or Vault Boy, used by the Pip-Boy computer in drawings illustrating the various skills, stats, perks and other aspects of the player's status. In Fallout 3, the character is written as the mascot of the Vault-Tec corporation and is a frequently recurring element in Vault-Tec-related items in the world.

It would still need references added and maybe another quick round of copy-editing (this is just off the top of my head) but I think it covers all the factual points needed for the section while remaining clear and concise. Tell me what you think.

Thank you for your cooperation with all Wikipedia policies in your future edits! Matt T. (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. The original edit was mine, and I stand by it. I find it funny that you can complain about being "insulted" when your leadoff to me was that I "obviously haven't played F1 or F2," when, in fact, I can assure you that I have. I would also refer you to the fallout wiki, fallout.wikia.com, so that you can read what other people who have played F1, F2, and F3 have collected about series canon. I'm not suggesting you use it as a citable source, but I would say that, like wikipedia, it is a good starting point for learning more.
Let me break it down for you:
Pipboy or PIPboy (the first three letters an acronym for Personal Information Processor) is the brand name of the Vault Tec computer given to the player early in Fallout and Fallout 2. And Fallout 3. And why alternate spellings? Can you provide proof that it is spelled these ways in F1 and F2? Because I can find lots of instances of Bethesda spelling it Pip-Boy, and they're pretty careful about that sort of thing. By the way, they own the series, too, so what they say can be considered canonical. Furthermore, can you cite a source for the assertion that Vault-Tec manufactures the Pip-Boy? I'm pretty sure it was RobCo. The only contradiction here MIGHT be in F3, where Bethesda's teaser videos suggest that it is a Vault-Tec product. This makes your assertion all the more silly, since you just ripped on me for using F3 as my source. This is why I avoided citing a manufacturer, because it is somewhat ambiguous. FInd a source, please. Displayed on the character screen is an illustrated character which may also be referred to as 'Pipboy'. Referred to by whom? By you? By the player? By Black Isle or Bethesda? Do you have proof? Cite, please, because I've NEVER heard of him being called Pipboy. The character's alternative name is 'Fallout Boy'; this use having the advantage of distinguishing the character from the computer. Alternative name as established by whom? Some fans on a forum? Can you get a good source? Black Isle and Bethesda called him Vault Boy. Each of 150 SPECIAL stats, perks, special perks, traits, skills, ailment indicators, Karma, even level and other miscellaneous data display the Fallout Boy in a unique illustration.[15] Fallout Boy's image also illustrates the Vault-Tec Lab Journal player's guide sold with Fallout 2.[15] My edit says this more succinctly, and this information is also true for F3. And why are you insisting on using Fallout Boy? [edit]Pip-Boy (Fallout 3) The Pip-Boy (Personal Information Processor-Boy) is a computer given to the player early in Fallout 3 which serves various roles in quest, inventory, and battle management, as well as presenting player statistics. [edit]Vault Boy (Fallout 3) The Vault Boy character is Vault-Tec's mascot, and is a frequently recurring element in Vault-Tec-related items in the world. This includes the Pip-Boy, where Vault Boy models all of the clothing and weaponry, and illustrates all of the character statistics and selectable attributes.[16] How is this information specific to F3? What part of it is untrue for F1 and F2?I welcome your thoughtful response, and your citations. Iroll (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Iroll makes a compelling case for getting rid of even the concillations I put into my merged edit, and going back to the original version. So far as I can tell, the only factual differences added in the Anarchangel version is that Vault Boy is also called Pip-Boy or Fallout Boy. However, Anarchangel has cited nothing compelling to support that while I can, for example, cite these Official Bethesda Blog entries where they refer to the character as Vault Boy [4]. On my page he linked to a website about Fallout where one of the posts called the character Fallout Boy, but it seems that a Bethesda reference to the Vault Boy name would trump most other evidence, except maybe an official reference by one of the games or game developers to the otherwise.

Given the evidence presented here I'm inclined to simply revert to the orginal version rather than my above attempt at a merged version. I was hoping that Anarchangel would cite some stronger evidence for his position, but given that he hasn't, and has made continued to make other edits to Wikipedia, I must assume that he has either forgot about this debate or is specifically trying to avoid having it. I hope he isn't simply ignoring us and simply waiting to revert any changes without debating them.

As for the genre debate, I have cited reliable, external sources while you have yet to cite any for your own cause. An edit has to be more because you, personally, consider it obvious; you need to have external sources if the point is at all contested, which this point obviously is given that we're here discussing it.

I'm going to go ahead and make the changes, then. Anarchangel, please do not add your edits back in without first discussing them. Iroll and I have both made good-faith attempts to try to come to consensus with you here and you haven't responded despite being obviously active on Wikipedia in the meantime. Given that the two of us have formed a consensus on what to do, that is what I'm going to follow. If you wish to debate the point further, please do so before you make any edits.

Thank you for your work on Wikipedia! Matt T. (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin article: rape kits section

This section may not have been perfect, but it was hammered out after extremely extensive discussions aiming to produce consensus. I can't tell you not to edit or discuss this section, but please take care to achieve the same level of balance/NPOV as was shown in the section as it read on Nov 4 and thereafter. I do not have time to participate in the same level of full blown discussion we went through back then, but I will continue to support all efforts to maintain the same level of neutrality.

Specifically speaking, the St. Petersburg Times article reporting that their investigation found no evidence is essential to properly reflecting the balance of published material on the subject.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My deletion of material from the page is not responsible for Tom's deletion of material even if it caused that reaction in him. I will not do only things that Tom and Collect approve of because they hold material we favor hostage. Anarchangel (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware they are holding the article hostage, but nothing apparently is going to stop them, even though a stunning proportion of their actions and comments are in total violation of multiple policies. I accept that they're wrong, accept that they should be perma-banned, but we are stuck with catering to their childishness. On top of that, the compromise that got other editors "on the other side" on board with including this in the first place hinged on it being worded the way it was. It's my humble opinion that all the "votes" against inclusion are ill-founded, and that it ought to be based on policy rather than a "vote" anyway, but nevertheless we must compromise with them. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That last comment on my talk was funny, although unnecessarily circumspect in my opinion. As a footnote, I hear WalMart is having a sale on institutional size containers of Gator-Ade, in case you are running out of steam. Also, illegal steroids will help you recover faster from extreme exertion.

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines." Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like to wrap up this rape kit material on Sarah_Palin and can give it a break for the holidays, Anarchangel. While I'll admit I've been accused of being an optimist (both in real life and here), I mean no offense by saying you're engaged in illogical negativism based on the facts related to this point. It's clear to me that you believe Palin was involved (possibly even directly) in Fannon's practice of billing the insurers through the hospital; unfortunately, the available facts from reliable sources simply don't bear out any role related to Palin. Certainly, you know there are enough Palin-haters out there who would present that evidence if it existed. More importantly, even if it were our role in WP to indict and try Palin under the circumstantial evidence, it's actually equally valid to conclude she knew nothing about this practice based on the evidence we do have. Again, I'm not your enemy on this. While I do sincerely believe the entire issue was genuinely being misrepresented by partisans during Campaign 2008, I also understand it was a legitimate controversy in the media, and it warrants mention in the article. However, given that there is no direct evidence of her involvement, and despite her evasive (your term) responses to questions on the matter, we have no business leading WP readers to conclude one thing or the other. Thus, the original language of consensus remains the only satisfactory one, unless and until new evidence is presented that states she was involved or aware of the practice. To that end, the statement should be short and sweet: Palin hired Fannon, Fannon opposed the law because he said he billed insurance, and there's no evidence Palin supported or opposed his practice. Fcreid (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC) This is not a matter for my personal attention. All this material has already been presented in Discussion, and it should stay there. If you're concerned about the article, know that I too will be taking some time off, to get my computer fixed. Thank you. Anarchangel (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert needed

Do me a favor and revert Threeafterthree's latest (25th) deletion of the rape kit material. We've both been warned by an admin for edit warring, and that's all well and good, but if the article is going to be "frozen" it ought to be frozen at the consensus version and not the version where Three has deleted the whole section again. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Guns and Stambaugh...

That SB177 stuff really needs to stay out of the Palin article once it's opened again for editing. It is pure Campaign 2008 fiction contrived (largely by us) to make the Stambaugh firing seem like a dispute about the Second Amendment, and nothing could be further from the case. For what it's worth, I am an ardent advocate for handgun control; however, consulting either career cops or career criminals for policy guidance is akin to asking a fox to manage the hen house. Fcreid (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Anarchangel, your stamina is admirable (and invaluable). If I didn't know better I might think you'd made off with 15:03's meds. :~) Writegeist (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Useful sources

A quick read through Talk:Saatchi Gallery#Recent edits by User:Infoart et seq. is instructive (a shill for Saatchi, all too obviously a paid PR flak, tried to subvert the article and turn it into a puff piece by weeding out anything that could be deemed unflattering to the odious Charles; ran into resolute resistance; reappeared as a sockpuppet; was thwarted; returned to find the the other editors' determination to maintain NPOV undiminished. etc. etc. - hmm, lessons there for handling our pet GOP shill(s), perhaps?); also WP:IDHT:

"...editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited [e.g. a certain interpretation of "consensus" etc.], repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point.
"Wikipedia is based upon collaborative good faith editing and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant – it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point."

Rather a good description of some of our, er, friends who demonstrate scant interest in NPOV at best and actively try to circumvent and/or undermine it at worst. Well, I thought so anyway. :~) And it led me to wonder who might be whose sock over there. Writegeist (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is a sock, they're wasted on that, they should be writing fiction novels. I see distinct personality types in all of them. It hardly matters, also, the other issues you raised are the primary hindrance. Anarchangel (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fyi

I know the egregious PAs on you by FCR and 15.03 at SP Talk are water off a duck's back. (And always rather admire that you hold back in response.) But I thought, for the sake of other editors and/or readers checking in, it would be best to remove the PAs so that there's at least a semblance of civility in what, IMHO, has become an ugly and increasingly dirty campaign against your now almost single-handed (my apologies) pursuit of NPOV etc. in the article.

FCR promptly reverted me to reinstate the attacks. You might want to read the reason he gave (but not my long-winded reply): User talk:Writegeist#Understand you're hoping to mellow things out.. And you might want to note the diff of his revert for future ref. Tra la la! — Writegeist (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Egregious PA, eh? I'll stand by my comments, WG. An editor who jumps onto talk and announces nonsense about "cat's been away and mice were playing" or whatever is acting like a jerk. To take the entire article into a sandbox, rewrite much of what's been in there for months and then post essentially a new article saying "rm puff and unsourced" or whatever crap is acting like a jerk. Now, saying that Huffington Post is a reliable source and then attempting to discredit the Saint Petersburg Times as a mouthpiece of right-wing propaganda... well, that's just hysterical! :) Fcreid (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

FCR: Boy. Personal attacks, bad faith, incivility, insults/epithets, straw man arguments, misrepresentation of a RS and so on and on.

It's is hard enough to A the GF of a longtime (one might almost say full-time!) Sarah Palin WP:SPA whose comments on the article's content often seem to serve no higher purpose than to exclude fully qualified material that happens to be more encyclopedic than hagiographic. But when the SPA resorts to base (and mostly proscribed) tactics in pursuit of his strategic goal, and moreover insists on using them against an editor whose only crime is the deployment of an apparently more powerful arsenal of intelligence, logic, rhetoric, patience, good humor and consideration of an encyclopedia's proper aims, then the SPA really does run the risk of forcing those overstretched As of GF beyond their breaking-point.

Please note the lead para of WP:PA:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks [as I know from personal experience, ho ho]. I think it's fair to say that calling another editor a jerk, for instance, constitutes a personal attack. Reinstating the insult after another editor has deleted it is a repeated personal attack.

Now that this has been explained to you, I trust you will remove the offending remarks.

Also worth noting in the PA article:

A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered WP:DE disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process... I leave you to join the dots here yourself.

Also:

Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. Ditto the dots here.

Etc. Thank you. — Writegeist (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that Writegeist has engaged in the very behavior he claims to be outing...and he does it on this very page. Calling others "GOP shills" and "sock puppets"...tsk, tsk.LedRush (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. But good to know you're paying such rapt attention. — Writegeist (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

WG, you really should be providing tutelage rather than prodding Anarchangel like a bully goading a schoolmate into sticking pennies in the fuse box. Why have you not informed Anarchangel that Huffington Post is a blog (way outside the spectrum of neutrality) and not suitable as a WP:RS? Certainly you know that. In addition, why have you not provided guidance that explains how WP:NPOV must be followed by presenting material in the most neutral (and not negative) manner? Anarchangel is clearly not interested in what I have to say and is actively savaging reputability among far more seasoned editors than all of us. I'm very disappointed that you're hindering that process. Also, for what it's worth, I'm not longer a WP:SPA, as I recently found another topic that interested me on which I have unique qualifications 'Fallow_deer', so you can drop the SPA nonsense. Fcreid (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't realize it's common to refer to SPAs as SPAs. (Like referring to IPs as IPs.) So long (very long) as you were an SPA it was accurate, and not at all nonsensical, to refer to you as one. Congratulations on your new-found interest in deer. Beware 'Lyme's disease'! I've always rather liked that deer are close relatives of hares, or at least so I was told. Sorry but I think your characterizations of my observations to A are just silly and probably just intended to needle. But hey, it's the silly season and I'm sooo silly already that I'm quite unneedlable! Cheers — Writegeist (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not so new-found. Despite growing up in the city, my college studies were in the environmental sciences. Several years ago I was able to purchase a large (DC-wise) bit of land a few miles east of the White House. Beyond the general tranquility of being immersed in flora and fauna (fox, boar, rabbit, deer, countless species of birds and trees), I also had a well-organized herd of 'Fallow_deer' that frequently visited the apple, pear and other fruit trees next to the house. I had enrolled all except an acre of land immediately surrounding my house under the Maryland forest management program, so I contacted the experts with photos to learn more about them. (The consensus was these were escapees from my neighbor's farm, who is licensed to board "exotics" on his 400-acre property.) Anyway, word spread about them, and I've caught poachers on the property with long-rifles and crossbows in search of them. I haven't seen the small herd in about a year. While these aren't "endangered", and they are non-native, the concept of trophy-hunting is utterly foreign and barbaric to me. Anyway, as I stated early on, I will contribute to WP as I stumble across articles that pique my interest and where I feel I might have something to contribute. And, no, I wasn't needling either of you guys. I would only ask you to consider the distinct possibility that the void in support for your position is not due to some WP:CONSPIRACY but rather because the position is incredibly POV. Just a thought. Anyway, holiday cheers to you both. Fcreid (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion thread commenced after two consecutive (-A-) edits

Edit War on Palin Article

<Image - nowiki tags due to the issue being the other side of borderline>[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 'Sarah Palin'. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. LedRush (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone could fill me in on the rules regarding removal of such a tag when it is used without merit? I would rather it wasn't on my talk page, as I have never in the entire history of my Wikipedia editing made more than 2 edits in one day, altho' I did get tempted once, see top of this page. Anarchangel (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think while it is considered bad form to delete these messages, it is ok to do so. The preferred form would be to do what I've done on my talk page (which was recommended by an editor on Wikiquette alert page). What I did there was to keep the warning and all the discussion but to change the title to "An Unfortunately Improper Warning" and then argued why it was improper (while another editor argued why it was proper).

However, I would argue on your page (and here) that the warning is proper. While you didn't make 3 edits in a 24-hour period, you did make 3 reverts of the same material in 3-days while there was long standing disagreement on the talk page. Additionally, you've reverted text in that section at least 3 times previously. 2 of your edits came in rapid succession and I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of this policy as I would have reported you if you had made one more edit in the same 24-hour period. Remember, edit warring doesn't mean that you broke the 3RR rule, it can mean that you've made a "large number of reversions in content disputes" which is the warning I wanted to convey. I just wanted you to bring the discussion back to the talk page and not the edit summaries.LedRush (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that there was " long standing disagreement on the talk page" and that you "just wanted (me) to bring the discussion back to the talk page" are contradictory. I have made considerably more contributions to the discussion than you, even in the past week, when you have been more active. My assertions frequently go unanswered; additions to the page are continually reverted without prior discussion, often with erroneous summaries, and if they are explained at all afterward, contradictions, counterarguments and even refutations of the explanations almost always go unanswered. While I find your interpretation of the 3RR rule intriguing, it lacks citation. The closest correlation to the WP rules that I know of is the "3RR does not give the right to make 3 edits" qualification. Interesting fact: Collect made 13 edits to Sarah Palin on the very same day - 14th Sept - he advised in the blocking of another editor (Gwen Gale talk) for 5. Far as I know, he got special dispensation from neither Jimmy Wales nor the Pope to do that. Anarchangel (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, my two comments aren't contradictory. When there is a discussion ongoing on the talk page, you can only escalate it and make resolution more difficult by repeatedly editing the same section.

Secondly, your continued assertions that people don't refute your arguments is just plain absurd. People continually refute them convincingly, but you come back and say the same thing in a wall of text until people don't have the patience to deal with you. You edit war with the attitude that you can just wear everyone out.

Finally, I am not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse, but I will answer your assertion about Collect in two ways which seem incredibly obvious to me. 1, Just cuz others do stuff doesn't mean that you can. 2. An edit is not always a revert.

I note that you have still not addressed my point that the warning was obviously warranted based on your continued reversions of the same content.LedRush (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Above is an unwarranted warning from an involved and opposing editor, pretty clearly contrived to silence and/or intimidate. — Writegeist (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It is intended to end Anarchangel's bad behavior and nothing else. Writegeist's continued inappropriate name calling and ad hominem attacks need to be addressed, but not here. Suffice to say his inappropriate comments on my intentions are false.LedRush (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, more of the same scurrilous canard. (If you repeat something often enough people will believe it?) There is no "bad behavior" by Anarchangel. If you sincerely think there is, take it to the appropriate wikivenue. Anarchangel behaves, as the record shows, and as I already pointed out, with commendable restraint, even when personally attacked by others; yet you did not go out of your way to drop warnings on their talk pages as you did here. As there are no grounds for your warning to Anarchangel you should remove it.

My reference to you as an "involved and opposing editor" is hardly name-calling or an ad hominem attack. Please cease these smear tactics, both here and on my talk page. They don't help.

That's all I have to say here. If you want to argue with me, take it to my talk page. Oh, you already did. — Writegeist (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been dealing with Anarchangel's bad behavior with much patience and at the appropriate venues. Of course, your reference to "smear tactics" is itself a smear tactic, but now we'll have fingers pointing in all directions. Hopefully you can follow some of your own advice.LedRush (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchangel, it looks to me as though LedRush's accusations (of "appearing" to edit war, when clearly there was no such appearance, and of "bad behaviour" when clearly there was none), together with the unmerited 3RR warning (to an experienced and responsible editor whose history contains not a single instance of 3RR violation), are gaming smears (i.e. accusations without substance that are intended to discredit you, from an editor who opposes your desired good-faith edits to an article in which he is also actively engaged). (And note: If gaming [the system] is...knowingly used as a basis to impugn another editor or to mischaracterize them as bad faith editors, then this may also violate the policy of no personal attacks.)

That being the case, you might consider deleting this entire section (including the unwarranted "warning"), unless you want to preserve it as a record of LedRush's own behaviour towards you. (If so, you might want to consider archiving.) Disregard LR's ominous and apparently intimidatory mutterings about removal being "bad form". It isn't, regardless of the merit or otherwise of any warnings deleted. (And anyway how could it be "bad form" if, say, you were black and removed a statement that you were white?) You are at full liberty to delete material from your talk page. That includes even bona fide, fully merited warnings, e.g. from sysops. The assumption is that you read them before deletion.

If you are still unsure, check with your canine sysop contact.

IMO LedRush's behaviour here looks to fit into a pattern of attacks by a number of editors at SP Talk who appear to have joined forces there to exclude notable, verifiable and reliably sourced information from SP's BLP that you wish to see included. If there's a difference in LR's technique it's that gaming the system is more subtle than the monosyllabic abuse favored by some of the other editors at SP Talk, who apparently, and regrettably, are given free rein by the overseeing sysops to insult you as e.g. a "jerk" and a "troll" as the mood takes them.

Shabby stuff, indeed. Happy Christmas! — Writegeist (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Content reverted

Just letting you know, I reverted your edit here [5] because it removed several other editors' comments. Feel free to readd it if you'd like. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

~~[6] [[WP:DTTR|Don't template the regulars]. Please show me where one of my edits on that talk page removed anotehr editor's comments, other than reverting your edit that I pointed out to you above.~~ Dayewalker (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. See Dayewalker's page. I misread a diff. He has my retraction. Looks like I have to do my own 'splaining tho. Anarchangel (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot I had come over here also. Man, looking at my old edits it's easy to fly off the handle sometimes. My apologies for not getting to this one sooner. No harm done, good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

More on Palin Talk Page

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

I know you're not new to Wikipedia, but I thought a reminder of this policy was in order since you've been changing people's comments on the Palin talk page. I know you meant well, but it's better to leave a record of a discussion than to impose your interpretation of other people's comments on them.LedRush (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

SPA

= WP:SPA

Cheers, — Writegeist (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

My Palin edits

I see you reverted my edits on masse and wihtout explanation. I have explained the nature of my edits (though not the specifics) on the talk page so I will not do so again. I understand why you would revert the section that factchecker and ferry were arguing about, but if no one has found problems with the other edits, why not leave them? If there are problems, why not revert that specific one (not all of them at once) and then explain the edit on the talk page? You've even reverted some extra spaces I've deleted.

You would be right to say that I should explain the removals on the talk page, but I attempted to be bold and make edits that could be agreeable to all and make the article better. Only one of my edits was the subject of contention.

I will be happy to make my arguments on the talk page, if necessary. But if you have reasons to be entrenched against them I would like to hear them so as not to waste everyone's time with a new, knock-down, drag-out fight.

I am writing on your wall (and not the talk page) in the hopes that we can come to an agreement before going to the talk page, where agreements between editors with different opinions are hard to come by.LedRush (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A mistake in looking at diffs made this whole section on your talk page a mistake. You've done exactly what I complained about you not doing. I apologize. Feel free to delete this section of your talk page.LedRush (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please xplain

Why you felt the need to post the remarks[7] which had been removed now by two different administrators as uncivil and harmful to the general tone of the page, adding your personal "attestation" to the remark? Are you trying to keep the squabbling and incivility going? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as we're on the subject of T:SP, massive kudos for this post! thank you thank you for doing your part to bring the discussion to a civil level. (still wondering about the one mentioned above tho) KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Probios and the Palin/Dino man-ape gone wrong thing

I appreciate your following up on Oldman D and 11dimensons. But the reason I call Probios' edit a distortion of the source is because Probios said, flat out, "Palin holds the fundamentalistic [sic] christian belief system of young earth creationists," [8]. No such claim is made in the Times article he cited by any stretch, but Probios presented this as a statement of fact and then edit warred for its inclusion[9]. The statements "person A believes position X" and "person B claims person A believes position X" are not the same thing. I don't deny that this would have merited inclusion if the source had been good, but that isn't really relevant as there is, to date, no good source for these allegations. If you look at his edit history, you see that Probios' contributions to the Palin article didn't go much further than pushing the YEC argument. He even called himself biased [10], and then disappeared after the election was over. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice regarding Sarah Palin "RFC or ANI?"

Anarchangel, please consider giving up on your crusade to insert the rape kit material into the Sarah Palin article. You have been on Wikipedia for over a year, but you have devoted one-third of your edits to this single misguided cause. A very large majority of the editors interested enough in the article to look at it from time to time think this material is inappropriate for this biography. The Sarah Palin article is really a terrible example of Wikipedia. It has no cohesion, and is only a collection campaign charges and campaign marketing. Adding one more campaign charge of dubious connection to Palin isn't going to improve the article one bit. Don't let this become an obsession.

Though I know my advice hasn't been solicited, and may not even be welcome, it is sincere. Take a break from Palin. Spend some time on other Wiki pursuits. Spend some time in the Wikipedia article space. Chip in on the Featured Article Candidates page, volunteer for some Good Article reviews, adopt an article and see if you can get it through the FA or GA process. All of these activities are likely to be more rewarding than continuing to push a boulder up the Sarah Palin hill.

In 'John Cages 1958 lecture, Indeterminacy. he tells a story about two Chinese monks. It is good advice.

Best wishes for the new year.--Paul (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page comment edit

Hi Anarchangel. I edited one of your comments in Talk:Sarah_Palin#Edit_request for BLP reasons. I started a section on the claim at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Claim_about_McCain_in_earlier_talk_section. Andjam (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

electronic voting

Hello, Anarchangel. You have new messages at Electiontechnology's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

please be mellow

I realize you're probably just trying to be cute here, but this sort of thing is unlikely to move the debate forward. I know you're not the only one doing it (i.e., getting a bit zingy), but you're doing it a lot! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Very tired

Hey Anarch. I've been out of town and haven't caught up with things until recently. I appreciated your commentary on LedRush's rants. However, I no longer have the time or energy to work on Wikipedia for a while. It looks like the hottest point of debate is now moot, as well. And I'm not too keen on being tarred, feathered, and essentially labeled an evil troll, nor subjected to the frankly dishonest debate tactics employed by several editors at Palin. Anyway, I know you don't have the tendency to flagrantly mouth off the way Write did, but since I agree with the advice you left on my talk, I'll repeat it to you: pick your battles and watch out that you don't get banned or canned in the course of an honest debate. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Needs a Stethoscope

		Civility Award
		In its simplest form...courtesy. In its best expression...community. We should all be as steadfast as Anarchangel --Buster7 (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Quillivec

Hi,. Thanks for the message. I think the confusion arises from attempts to combine diferent versins of the text. As I understand his mother was the model. The bronze is a cast from his study of her for the memorial. I'll check my sources. Paul B (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope so, because that the bronze is an artifact of the creation of the town statue is in itself a great story worth including. As you can see from my 'media' additions, I rate processes and materials highly in a discussion of an artist and their work. Anarchangel (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Where was this[11] removed? Would you please post a dif here? Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean, where was it changed from my original, then here by Ledrush.

My bad; it appears that I was mistaken about the identity of the editor; the edit wasn't signed, and for some reason I assumed it was Collect. Now I understand his comment a little better. I think. Anyway, I will fix the naming of Collect, & post a clarification and apology.

And a warning: In this edit[12] you moved another editor's post. Do not do this again. It is disruptive and disrespectful. Be aware, this article is on probation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll do as you say, of course, but if I make an appeal first: There is a very good reason that the material should be where I put it; there is a named section below for discussion, ie Dispute over Record, the Record being the list of Refuted etc above. And then there is Contended, which is arguments about the definitions, material, and cites themselves, so that is a dispute about things that will go in the Record. If you see the above edit, you can see how LedRush completely changed around the meaning of what I had written. So then I made the mistake of thinking it was Collect that had done it. I don't mean, they did it first, which of course is no argument; I only mean it as an explanation of what occurred. My main motivation, in any case, for moving his comment was keeping the section uncluttered, and I still want to have the freedom to do that if you will grant me that, please. Anarchangel (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What KC didn't see, of course, was that LedRush had not only moved my text, as per my entry above for , but altered it.

I did not change around anything, at least not on purpose. I was only trying to move a bunch of contentions from "unrefuted" to "disputed". The problems with Anarchangel's system are numerous. Even when done in good faith, it is very confusing to follow where he's moving arguments, making claims, and putting things together. And, of course, when there is one person unilaterally deciding what is unrefuted (his argument) and what arguments are useless (my arguments) it engenders a very, very bad feeling in others (at least in me).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Palin&diff=262889107&oldid=262864791

The above is a diff for 3 consecutive edits by Anarchangel. Having the arguments moved around is confusing, and having some long standing disagreements unilaterally declared refuted (even over the objections of the editor with whom the disagreement is ongoing, is frustrating, at the very least.

I understand and respect what Anarchangel was trying to do with that section...it just seems best to let the talk page work as it does and let conversations have their own sections.LedRush (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Anarchangel, if what you're trying to do is to get the page organized so that arguments can be followed, I empathize completely. However, in my experience, people really don't like their comments being moved or altered in any way (except perhaps fixing links that aren't working, etc.). I'm leaving a suggestion on the talk page that most of what's on there should be archived so that it's easier to make sense of it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I already archived it, about an hour ago. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding: See Wikipedia:TPG. Read it carefully. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"from whence"

Often found per Bartleby http://www.bartleby.com/64/C002/019.html "But from whence has been used steadily by reputable writers since the 14th century, most notably in the King James Bible: “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help” (Psalm 121). It is hard to label as incorrect a construction with such a respectable record of usage." Also by Walter Scott and a bunch of others <g>. Collect (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC) 'Whence'='from where'. Ergo, 'From whence'='From from where'. Anarchangel (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the page with the right references on List of rocket, mortar, bombing and infantry attacks by Israel in 2009. Sorry for my inexperience. 13 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevoyftp (talk • contribs) 01:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks again for pointing out that the 1 Jan entry had a different cite to the other two. I will be more careful with those; they are the exact same url except for the date.

I put off using the cite template for ages. But it actually easier, compared to the benefits, once you know the formula. The only 'fields' that are required are the url= and the title= fields; I try to put the rest in there, but they aren't necessary. If it's Reuters or CNN or Time or some other such that confers instant credibility to the cite, tho', it would be a waste not to use publisher= .
I wouldn't bother searching for the author= , they don't get credited much on big news sources like CNN, and the date= is pretty much observable in the situation we're in. Anarchangel (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

redirecting

Of course I'm not a participant on either page; the Israel/Palestine articles are a cesspool of POV-pushing from partisans on both sides. I used to try to edit legitimately in the area, but it's ridiculous to try to actually do so unless you have infinite free time. These days I just spot-check for the worst of the POV forks (which this content area draws more than most; there are literally dozens of them currently extant, and hundreds that have been deleted) and try to mitigate them. If you insist, I'll list the articles (both the Israel-attacks and the Palestinian-attacks ones) on AfD for discussion. --Delirium (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging and deleting

As far as I know, there is no such thing as merging and deleting articles on Wikipedia, although I have been gone a while. ;-) There might still be a rare exception where the histories are merged, but I doubt that that is what is meant in this case. If there are case(s) in which an AfD has been officially closed by an admin as "merged and deleted", then unless there has been a policy change, and since it is such a fundamental policy that I do not know how this could possibly be, you should bring the situation to the attention of some admins by posting to the relevant page/sub-page at the top of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (I used to know what went where, but things have changed somewhat) and be sure to cite examples (provide links to the AfD page(s)). I also suggest informing admins who have used such closures in the past on their talk page. Give them the same reason as below. Also, if it is only one or two admins, you could simply inform them on their talk page instead. I do not know how things run on the Admin's Noticeboard these days, but in the past problems were often a lot easier to deal with one on one, especially by using clarity in speech and being slow to anger. By the way, I do not know how familiar you are with Wikipedia or AfD, so please do not be offended if it seems like I am being condescending.

As far as participants in an AfD arguing for "merge and delete", they should be informed of why that is not done, preservation of attribution as per Wikipedia's licensing (GFDL). Please be gentle with the newbies when informing them of this policy. If the use of the phrase "merge and delete" is pervasive among AfD editors, it might be good to give an a head's up to the admins. If you cannot decide which admin page to use, go for the main noticeboard. I apologize for the length of time it took to get back to you. Talk to you later, Kjkolb (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

GDP growth article opinion

I started a discussion here that I would like to hear your thoughts on. Thanks. Sbw01f (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Amphetamine. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Collect

I added new evidence: [13]. Please review your endorsement. If you still endorse the RFC, leave your endorsement. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

collect

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--Brendan19 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum

The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:

Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.

Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to help guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

RobJ1981's behaviour

I am collecting a list of articles where he conducts himself like that and am contemplating initiating an RfC on him. If you are interested in taking part, message me

Ignored cases where the article actually got deleted because on those articles he could do the "Delete per above" thing. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to refine the list into cases where he blatantly violated WP:ITSCRUFT in nominating an article, cases where he blatantly violated WP:ITSCRUFT for how he voted in various AfDs, and cases where he simply just followed a bandwagon (whether the bandwagon won the AfD or not) voting Delete/redirect per above. I have been going through his contribs and it appears he rarely actually adds content to Wikipedia, most of his edits are either deleting content from articles (though I must admit once in while his deletions are valid) or him nominating or voting for anything and everything to be deleted. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you are aware of the phrase, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day", but since I made it up, you haven't heard, "Just because a working clock shows the same time as a stopped clock twice a day, doesn't make it wrong." This helps me when I find myself agreeing with people who are always wrong, and start wondering if they might be right. RJ deletes everything; that he sometimes deletes things that should be deleted, can effectively be put down to randomness. Anarchangel (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Regarding your comment "Both nominator and Niteshift must be unaware of the layout of similar organizations' pages, such as that of NOW" [14]. Please don't presume to tell me what I do or do not know. As I said in the AfD, my opinion wasn't based on their views, it was based on the lack of notability of that specific org. And I did read HB 1682 BTW. Apparently the AfD was more successful than HB 1682 and apparently, I wasn't the only one who thought that the organization wasn't notable. But thanks for singling me out anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you one thing you don't know: how what I wrote relates to what you wrote. The part of your sentence that I was responding to wasn't "notability of the specific org", it was "the article has a real COI issue". The org's printing of their mission statement is in line with NOW's and other orgs' pages. How you fail to know this when it has been written out in black and white, I can only guess. And I am unimpressed by your majority, and the result. 10k fools are still fools, and Stifle, with his exquisitely appropriate name, closed the discussion 13 hours after it had been relisted. I singled you out, with a sentence beginnning "Both..."? To say nothing of, you and the nominator were the only ones who had written anything up to that point. Anarchangel (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were going to be pedanitc about the use of the phrase "singled out". My error. I guess I could have phrased it more exact, but I didn't realize this was going to be an issue for you. Yes, it was closed 13 hours later, with 4 more delete votes to one keep. As for the rest...no need to address it if you are going to refer to those who disagree with you as fools. Happy editing. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Indiscriminate information

By the way, if you're still curious, the introduction at WP:NOT#Content states that the lists found in the subsequent subsections are not exhaustive, and that includes WP:IINFO. Powers ^T 12:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Good information. Anarchangel (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP

This is your only warning - revert your inclusion of information that was removed under BLP at Mass rape in the Bosnian War or I will bring up your violation of BLP up at ANI. BLP is not negotiable and your statement about the first source is 100% inaccurate and shows that you did not bother to read it as the term "mass rape" does not appear in any condition. Furthermore, the first link is not a reliable source and makes it clear Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems fairly unlikely that a single person would be charged with mass rapes. A single person, however, charged with single or multiple rapes may well be part of mass rapes. The documentation seems fairly clear. My arguments on the talk page and on the AfD against your deletions stand, as does my restoration.

Just in case you are seriously considering ANI, rather than merely attempting to use threats to get what you want, I would urge you to not waste ANI's time with what is quite clearly a discussion page issue at best. Anarchangel (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of "mass rapes" in any of the sources, and BLP makes it very clear that such things in any regard are inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And BLP is not for discussion. It is a legal policy set forth by the Foundation. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to sign...

...your comment to me here. I found it rather snarky, just so you know. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.