User talk:Alienus: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:31, 5 June 2006 editNandesuka (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users13,890 editsm →Olive Branch: grammar← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:14, 14 July 2013 edit undoThebirdlover (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,358 edits Redirecting per Fastily's reason for unprotection
(523 intermediate revisions by 73 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			#REDIRECT ]
	{{usertalk-sprotected}}
	{\| class="messagebox standard-talk" id="talkheader" align="center" style="text-align:center;background-color: #F8FCFF;"
	\|-
	! colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA;" \|
	This is the ] for discussing changes by ]'''
	\|-
	\| style="background-color: #F8FCFF;text-align:left;" \|
	Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), and give comments that start a new topic <nowiki>==A Descriptive Header==</nowiki>, placing them at the bottom of the page. If you're new to Misplaced Pages, please see ]. You're encouraged to ] and look at the ], but feel free to just jump in and ], if you don't have any ].
	\| style="background-color: #F8FCFF;" \|
	<div style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-left: 20px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-right: 3px;">
	''']'''

	Please respect ], which means above all ] and ], and bear in mind ].
	</div>
	\|}

	{{Calm talk}}

	==Welcome==
	Welcome to my Talk page. Please feel free to leave me messages here. ] 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

	Despite bumping heads with some people who had huge ideological axes to grind, I had a pretty clean record until I ran into ]. Ever since, the three people I've been in conflict with over that article have been responsible for my last three blocks, which have all been controversial, questionable, and extended. I'm sure this is only a ], not any sort of wikistalking or anything, but if ], ] or ] post anything here, in the interests of ], I'm just going to delete it out of hand. Two of them are admins, but ] prevents them from having anything to do with me as admins, so this is perfectly reasonable. Anyhow, as it stands, I have an ]
	open against them and they've got an ] brewing against me, so I think we interact too much already. ] 05:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Community Justice Newsletter ==

	<h2 style="background:#90ee90;margin:-2px;padding:4px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 15px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 15px;">
	] ''Community Justice Newsletter'' </h2>
	{\| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px" width="100%"
	\|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:0.5px solid #cef2e0; background-color:#90ee90; vertical-align:top;color:#000"\|
	{\| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#e7fde7"
	! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#90ee90; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Welcome</div>
	\|-
	\|style="color:#000"\|Previously, various notices regarding ] have gone out to our members; though this is the first actual ''newsletter''. This issue will contain information regarding decisions made on the first meeting, our new council, and more...!

	If you wish to unsubscribe to future newsletters, please add your name to ].
	\|-
	! <div style="margin: 0; background:#90ee90; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">New Council</div>
	\|-
	\|Following our ], a new council has been elected.] and ] remain as chairman and chief executive (respectively); while ], ] and ] are replaced as councillors by ], ] and ]. ] and ] remain as councillors.
	\|-
	! <div style="margin: 0; background:#90ee90; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Member Conduct</div>
	\|-
	\|In the last ], the conduct of 4 members were discussed. ] will be put on probation, supervised by ], if he/she is uncivil during this probation, he/she will be expelled from ]; the same was decided for ] (voluntarily), and his probation will be supervised by ]. No action will be taken against ].
	\|-
	! <div style="margin: 0; background:#90ee90; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Barnstar</div>
	\|-
	\|] The Civility Barnstar which our member's have designed has been sent to ]. We'd appreciate your feedback!

	Also, we are planning to make a Community Justice barnstar to give to hard-working CJ members. If you're a budding designer, consider trying to make it, then post your proposal to ]!
	\|-
	! <div style="margin: 0; background:#90ee90; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Name and logo change</div>
	\|-
	\|There has been no consensus reached regarding changing our name and/or logo neither at ] nor at ]. While suggestions are still welcome, no action will be taken at this time.
	\|-
	! <div style="margin: 0; background:#90ee90; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Programs</div>
	\|-
	\|We are going to try to create ''programs'' to more actively involve our members. If you have any ideas, please drop a line at ]. We will try to work with ] on one of these programs, at some point in the future.
	\|-
	! <div style="margin: 0; background:#90ee90; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Thanks!</div>
	\|-
	\|Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at ] or come into our ] channel .

	Computerjoe wishes to extend his thanks to ], a non-member who assisted in making {{tl\|tracker}} redundant, as well as ] for his continued support and to the whole of this and the previous council.

	This newsletter was delivered by ], written by ], with technical help from ]. ]] 19:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	\|}
	\|}

	== nathan's talk ==

	When did he give you and the other person permission to change that? <font color="red">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="limegreen">]</font>] <sup>(</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>)</sup> 16:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

	:The first sentence of ]'s Wikibreak message reads "<nowiki></nowiki> I don't care what you do to this page". My initial interpretation was that Nat was expressing disgust, not encouraging people to change his page and offering them permission. Having said that, I did notice that another editor chose to interpret it as permission, then went ahead and made a change that reversed the meaning of a sentence. I thought it might be better if the original text were allowed to remain unchanged, so I reverted it.

	:Have I explained my reasons sufficiently? ] 16:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

	::Yes, I wasn't questioning your intent. I just wondered if I had missed something. <font color="red">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="limegreen">]</font>] <sup>(</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>)</sup> 18:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Sorry if I was initially unclear. Please let me know if I can do anything else to help. ] 19:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

	== sorry ==

	I apologise. I have a bad cold and should have gone to bed. (My edit summary was badly worded too. Apologies for that. That's what comes from sneezing and coughing your way through WP stuff!) ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 02:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

	:I'm sure you didn't mean to be uncivil, so of course I accept your apology. I'm going to sit back and let others get involved, rather than get stuck in an edit war with you over this. ] 02:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Rand/Objectivism/Homosexuality ==

	Hi! Just wanted to say I weighed in on the debate over the page title at ]. Cheers --] ] 11:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Yes, I saw your comment, thanks. I'm going to hold off responding, though, until more people weigh in. ] 11:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Christians and Sociologists and Jews, oh my! ==

	You must be one of those, those, Dark Knights of Skeptism! 8-)

	Good to see you drop by. I've been distracted lately from the Jesus article. One day, though, I'll be back! ;-) Bob --] 14:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Good guess, but not quite. Whereas sociologists bombard with surveys that people lie in reply to and psychologists study how grad students behave when systematically lied to, my group listens politely, smiles, nods, then digs through your garbage until we get to the truth. I am therefore a proud member of the Anthropology Cabal; fear us!

	:Hi. Nice to see you as well, but I don't blame you for somehow not finding the time for ]. I've limited my partipation in some articles that seem to be intractable; and religious articles are among the worst. ] 14:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

	:: I deal with it by moving on these days to odd articles. Know anything about 17th Century French Canadian Explorers? ;-) Re: the sociologists: I like to say: "Lies, Lies, STATISTICS and Lies!" Try the all teens have sex surveys. --] 15:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

	:The article you want is: ]. ] 18:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Mediation ==

	Hi, what I'm going to do first off is leave a message for all involved parties informing them that we're going ot try and get the mediation started a.s.a.p.. I'll suggest a Misplaced Pages format, much easier especially with such a large number of parties. The first step will be for you to answer some initial questions I've got, once we've done that we can start focusing in on the specific areas of concern and what steps can be taken to resolve the issue.

	If you've got any questions or comments in the meantime please e-mail me or leave me a message. --]]] 14:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Your revert ==

	"Please get a consensus before making this change. Thank you." You do realize the version I reverted to was the original and it is ''you'' who reverted a ''modified'' version created without consensus, correct? —] 04:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Clearly, we disagree about which version is the consensus one. ] 04:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Religion and abortion ==

	Please see the ] about the "Religious groups section first line" to contribute to a consensus. (I thought you'd be interested, since you reverted the last edit.) Cheers! ] 16:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Thanks, I will. ] 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

	==Mediation==

	Hi, I'm going to be mediating your case, regarding the Medical analysis of circumcision.

	The mediation will take place ]. If you are planning to take a wiki-break in the near-future or will be unable to partcipate in the mediation could you please let me know. --]]] 19:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Danny and Eloquence ==

	Saw your message. Essentially what that particular snippet on the talk page relates to is actions by the Wikimedia Foundation employee Danny over a protection of a couple of pages. When that protection was made it was done in apparent violation of Misplaced Pages standards for page protection. Eloquence reverted the protection and was promptly desysopped and banned from editing Misplaced Pages. It turned out that Danny's protections were a WP:OFFICE situation, ie protecting the pages because of a potential legal situation. However there was no indication of that when the protections were done, hence Eloquence's reverts. In the end it was actually me that applied the OFFICE template to the protected pages to make sure that the protections were not removed again.

	The snippet itself is about my reaction upon seeing what had happened. I posted a very, very strongly worded piece on Danny's talk page deploring what had happened and demanding that it be reversed and never happen again. Tony objected and removed it from Danny's talk page. Things then bubbled along for a few days with a strong reaction against the banning and desysopping. I don't actually know what the final results of this were. ] 21:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

	:That's very interesting. Thanks for explaining the situation so far, and please feel free to keep me updated once it gets resolved somewhat. ] 23:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Re: Wikidude54 ==

	Thanks for the note. I am trying to be patient with ] because s/he seems to be genuinely trying, but if that particular addition continues to find its way into the ] article, I would completely support taking action. Thanks again, ]]]]<small>]]</small> 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

	:I think we all agree that the inserted text is unacceptable, but it does appear that Wikidude54 is a newbie, and we should avoid biting him. That's why I'm so glad you're able to take the more gentle approach that is probably most fair and effective. If gentleness fails, I suppose there's always room for blocks and such, but those really should be the last resort, not the first, particularly with people who don't know any better. Hope this works out. ] 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Of interest. ==

	Admin issues: ]. ] 22:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

	==BI Article==
	I removed the comment on 'string implants'. They were banned a long time ago, and are NOT among the primary types of breast implants. They are unlikely to be reintroduced to the market anytime soon. Also banned were hydrogel implants in the UK, and those are not included in the BI article. That is one thing we all had agreed on. The string implants, however, have a certain 'appeal' to some because they are what adult entertainers used and create cartoonishly large breasts. However, they were also dangerous. There is still debate about the safety of silicone gel implants, but at least they are allowed on the market, so should be included.] 17:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Please see my response on ]. ] 20:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Jtdirl ==

	Firstly I have not broken 3rr. Secondly, it is a bit rich to hear about consensus and discussion when you have offered not one iota of critique, discussed nothing, just blanket reverted an entire article to one which fails every criteria in article writing on WP, deleting international information, sources, footnotes, reading lists, etc. That is '''vandalism''' which if it continues will be reported to admins as vandalism and a block requested. I have explained my viewpoint. I have not deleted an article, just rewritten it. You continually delete an entire article. That is a blockable offence. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 21:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

	:As I've explained on your talk page and the article's, you are simply mistaken. Your reversions go against consensus, and if they're not officially in violation of ] yet, it's only by a technicality. Requiring ] is mandatory, not vandalism. Please take a hint from the fact that so many people have undone your work and demanded that you justify it. Perhaps you don't see just how biased your version is. Regardless, the end result is that you must go to the talk page and build a consensus or you will wind up being reverted again and again.

	:If you wish to report me for being one of the many people reverting your biased edits, you are free to do so. However, this will open you up to counter-reports of 3RR violation and your apparent threat to abuse your sysop bit to control content. With all due respect, I don't think it's a winning move for you. Thank you for understanding. ] 02:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

	==Fucking loved your comment==

	re:

	Thank man. I am about to get booted by another admin regarding his misguided view on wikipedia.] (]) ] 04:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

	:I've had my own run-ins with admins who don't exactly play by the rules, so you have my sympathy. Hang in there and don't give them any excuses to extend your block, because you know they'll take them. See you when you get back and hope my comment brought you some small amusement. ] 07:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

	::That's our Al - he knows how to win friends and influence people. ] 08:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

	:::Yea, and I do just love his social skills.- ] \| ] 10:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

	There's more than one way for social skills to manifest themselves, and there's a lot to be said for gaining a reputation for telling the truth, even when it offends people. ] 16:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Yes that is true that there's a lot to be said about telling the truth, just like there is for a tendatious and combative attitude.- ] \| ] 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

	In the interests of civility, I'd rather not discuss your attitude at this time. ] 04:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

	==Glad ...==

	Thanks, Ali, for your joking invitation. You know I objected to some of your posts on my talk page but you are always welcome to post light-hearted stuff like this. Yours in Christ, ] ] 10:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

	:I am deeply insulted that you think my new-found devotion for Zeus is a joke. I'm going to go cry in my corner now. ] 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Your note ==

	That page is for reporting 3RR violations. You were trolling. Jayg did not violate 3RR, so there was no need for you to wax lyrical. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

	:That page is for reporting 3RR violations and for commenting on the response to that particular violation, so I see my as being entirely on topic. They were primarily concerned with the unjustified extension of a previously short block.
	:Frankly, I do not see anything about them that would constitute trolling. Perhaps you could do me the courtesy of directing me to the part of ] that you think applies, so we can all see what your basis is.
	:Whatever your intent, there is now at least the ''appearance'' of admins censoring comments that they disapprove of, and that is itself harmful. We need our admins to act transparently and gain a reputation for fairness. This is currently not the case.
	:I encourage anyone reading this to follow the link above to the text she deleted, so you can see, and judge, for yourself. The judgement of any one person, even one with a sysop bit, is always suspect, which is where checks and balances fit in. ] 16:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

	::For the record, note that SlimVirgin never did respond so as to defend her censorship. I rest my case. ] 01:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	==Mediation News==

	I've now added my initial questions and comments on ]. I would ask that you add this page to your watchlist, as this will be where the mediation will take place.

	As I've said on the page, we must keep all debate Civil, and I will not tolerate any personal attacks. In order to resolve the issue all of you must be willing to listen to each other's view. It does appear that you have debated this issue qutie extensively already, and so if we are to achieve anything we must not keep repeating what has already been said, although reference may well be needed back to previous comments you have made.

	If you have any questions or comments then please either e-mail me or leave a message on my talk page. Again if you are planning to take a Wikibreak, or know you will be unable to access Misplaced Pages for any length of time then please do infrom me.

	I look forward to working with you. --]]] 20:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

	==allegations==

	:: "Alienus has allegedly raped five-year-old boys."

	:: "Alienus has raped people alleged to be five-year-old boys."

	You see the difference. The latter asserts guilt, rather than merely asserting that allegations were made. The same applies to you recent edit in ]: you put the word "alleged" in the wrong place. I've fixed it.

	On another matter, in view of the discussion at ], I think you should respectfully express yourself there before editing the article according your view that may be disputed there. ] 22:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Hey ==

	Glad we could end the Ayn Rand dispute with a compromise. I know it got a bit heated, but I hope there's no bad blood. Thanks for all your input. Cheers --] ] 11:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Likewise, I'm not taking any of this personally. We had a bit of trouble communicating, but we worked through it. ] 22:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

	==BI Article==
	Alienus, I object to your saying my POV is the problem. That is absurd. We all have POV. The writing is what should not be POV. When I first edited this article, it looked like an advertisement for breast implants. Rob Oliver wanted to simply say there was no controversy. That is flatly untrue. I was not the only one contributing to this, either. Will you please look at the history of this before you decide that I am POV? I am no more POV than Rob. Perhaps we need something in the middle, but it is not going to be done without discussion, and by Rob only. I am not the one who 'froze' the article, by the way. I really wish you would pay attention to what has gone on here, and not come in late and make judgments that are not accurate.] 00:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, I do think we need something in the middle. Currently, though, the article seems to reflect your concerns about the procedure but does not reflect the mainstream medical support for its safety.
	:The fact is that it's very routine and lots of people do it. This means that, on the one hand, it's safe and easy, but on the other, you're bound to find examples where it's gone wrong, particularly when the practioner is a relative amateur. At the very least, there are plenty of cases where the results are aesthetically questionable, even when they are medically safe.
	:The bottom line is that I don't need to know the entire history of the article to see that the POV pendulum has swung too far into the "con" direction, so we need an infusion of "pro". Let's present the facts and let people decide for themselves, ok? ] 02:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::If you had bothered to read the history, you would see why there are off-line article, and a consensus agreement to first discuss changes on the talk page of the off-line article. So yes, you DO need to read the history before jumping to conclusions. That is all that I have been asking for. I have even emailed other plastic surgeons to ask them to contribute. We need to have someone (knowledgeable about implants) other than Rob to help with these edits. Rob has refused to discuss on the talk pages, but instead has gone against what the consensus had been. This is not in the Wiki spirit. His edits were reverted by another admin, because he refused to discuss them on the talk pages first. INstead he deleted well referenced work of other editors (and not just me).
	So if you want to "present the facts", do so, in the manner agreed upon by administrators and other surgeons. By the way, what I have added IS the facts. There is NOTHING I have added that cannot be backed up by references. Should others be included? By all means, but only after discussion.
	::Secondly, why do you say this is very 'routine'? At least in the US, silicone implants are still banned, except under very controlled circumstances. ] 02:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	Saline implants are routine. If they leak, the harm is minimal. Silicone implants are, as you said, banned, precisely because of the harm that comes when they leak. ] 02:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::THe majority of what I had discussed was not saline implants. That has not been the issue here. The issue has been silicone implants. Although, I might add, that there is increasing controversy about saline implants. I had 'double lumen' which were saline and silicone (more common for reconstructive surgery), but I don't think the saline was the problem with me. It was the ruptured silicone that ended up causing such serious problems, as it has for many thousands of women. However, I do know that there have been batches of saline implants that had defective valves and made women very sick, because of fungus and mold that grew in the lumens. I still suspect they are safer than silicone, but others might disagree with me on that. Regardless, the issue that we have been discussing is silicone, not saline.] 02:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Oh, I think you'll have trouble finding knowledgable people who disagree with what we both said regarding saline being safer than silicone. Then again, I haven't seen a whole lot of mention of silicone in recent edits, so maybe this has died down. ] 02:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I think you are right, generally, but there are some plastic surgeons now voicing concern about saline implants. The issue with saline seems to be the sterility of the saline - hence the fungus and mold problems. I haven't seen the severity of problems that I see with silicone (leakage & rupture). However, I have been shocked by the number of women who have called me with problems with saline. Still, I don't know how common that is, statistically. That is why there is only a mention that problems have been reported with saline, with fungus and mold. That's all one can say about that, as far as I know.] 02:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	:It's my understanding that, as cosmetic surgery goes, breast implants don't take a whole lot of skill and they're quite profitable, so there are some semi-competent butchers out there who can't seem to manage the basics (like sterile saline). Saline implants are, in essence, victims of their own popularity.
	:I'm told there are similar issues with liposuction, although the hazards are somewhat greater, particularly when the surgeon tries to maximize results. Of course, the problem with both are the practictioners, not the procedures. It is their very ease and safety that lend themselves to amateur use. They're also expensive and not covered by insurance, so people are especially tempted to skimp and go with someone who's not ideal, which can get ugly.
	:Anyhow, these are obviously complicated issues, and it's especially important for us not to oversimplify them. Let's get all the facts on the table. ] 04:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	::Yes, I agree. Although we can't do it all in one article. There is another article on plastic surgery. I hope you realize now that 95% of discussion in the 'risk and controversy' section (which will be a separate article) is about silicone implants. The risks are simply greater, at least, from the implants themselves. One thing the FDA is trying to do now is to require board certification in plastic surgery to perform plastic surgery. That is not required now. A ''dentist'' can do breast augmentation. This whole experience that I have been through has made me much less trusting of doctors in general - trust but verify, I guess is my motto. As to the article on BI, I hope that other editors can and will contribute. Eventually it will be split. But we need others to help... and first discuss on the talk pages and get consensus, as I explained above. This may take awhile, but there is no harm in that.] 01:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	:For what it's worth, I fully support that. If I had ever wanted cosmetic surgery for some reason, I would not consider going to a surgeon who was not board-certified. But that's me: I'm not desperate, many are, which is why this is reasonable. The free market is many things, but it is clearly not a guarantee of medical safety.
	:Look, if the majority of the risk and controversy section is about silicone implants, which aren't even allowed anymore, perhaps it might make sense to break that section out into a fork. How does that sound? ] 01:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	::No, because the silicone implants are hotly debated now, especially since the FDA is reconsidering putting them back on the market. The last two years, manufacturers have really pushed it, and a year ago a panel (comprised mostly of plastic surgeons) has recommended approval of Mentor silicone implants. A year ago, the FDA gave both Mentor and Inamed an approval letter, meaning the FDA will approve if certain conditions are met. That evidently has not happened yet. The argument is that the 'new' implants are safer, but the two manufacturers only provided 2 and 3 years of data on rupture. That isn't much. The problem is that there is so much money involved, and politics.... I and many other doctors and scientists would like to see proof of safety, which there isn't. Anyway, a separate article is warranted, because of this. But we have to get to that point. ] 01:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	:I've worked on other articles that had sections grow so large that they were forked. I don't see why we would fork now. ] 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	::Okay what is the difference between a fork and a separate article? It seems that this is worthy of a second article, which was the consensus of other editors.] 03:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	:For an example of a fork, take a look . Note how a section of this article was broken out into a new one, which becomes the main article for that material. In short, a fork is a separate article that is an expansion of a section from a previous article, usually through specialization. On this basis, "Silicone breast implants" would be a good choice for a fork. ] 03:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Alienus, I encourage you to look at the research on this topic for yourself. You'll see there is in fact little debate in the medical community on the lack of evidence for links to systemic illness or cancer. This is a almost uniquely American political & tort-related phenomena. Close to two dozen governments have done systemic reviews of this since 1990 and they've all come to this conclusion. Complications from the implants (as near as well can tell with current data) seem to limited to the breast & every indexed complication parameter in the FDA trials is better with silicone implants rather then saline (except for a 3% higher incidence of capsular contracture). You can follow the history of this article and witness the ''hundreds'' of changes Molly makes to this monthly spinning it like a political debate. Despite her protestations, I've laid out in detail a great deal of a roadmap for the article in the discussion pages. She just has no interest in starting with the consensus information on the controversial areas. ] 04:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	:If so, then this is all the more reason to isolate the silicone debate into its own article, allowing BI to stabilize. ] 04:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	==]==
	What was the point in starting ''his'' user page? ]] 20:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Huh? It's a matter of politeness. ] 20:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Staying out ==

	Actually, I'm planning to stay out of any further political discussions on Misplaced Pages for the moment (particularly Rand...she makes my eye bleed). Good luck to you. --] ] 04:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	:You show great wisdom. There are many days when I've regretted ever getting involved with the Rand articles. My interactions have led to two blocks, which is one short of the ones I got for daring to get involved with circumcision articles. As for Laszlo's former partner, he left Misplaced Pages in a huff.
	:Anyhow, good luck with whatever you choose to edit. ] 04:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	Yes, I know what you mean. I've had many a debate on circumcision that could have lead to my own had my opponent had the tools to perform it. --] ] 04:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Assuming they'd have stopped at just removing the foreskin. As for being a major philosopher, Rand has the little problem of being considered irrelevant in philosophical circles. Her fame is in libertarian politics. ] 04:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Pro life==
	The word "fertilization" is clearly spelled with a "z," not an "s." Also fertilization is conception. They're the same thing. Referring to the unborn as "what" is just as biased as referring to them as "who." Also, putting quotes around the words "right to life" when explaining the view of pro-lifers shows sarcasm, as if you're mocking their belief. So I don't agree with the reverts from what I've seen at the beginning. Also, there's no need to use the words "emotive" and "scientific." This violates NPOV and is not needed anyway.] 04:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	::I generally reply to article-specific text on the article's talk page, not here. If you don't see a response and want to prompt me to look, then this is the place. Otherwise, it's not. ] 04:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Pro-choice ==

	Alienus, hi.

	Could I get some feedback from you on my latest edits to ]? I'm eager to keep working on it, but I don't want to leave consensus behind. -]<sup>(])</sup> 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


	== Help me understand ==

	If you post to me... its not vandalism. But if I post to you, it is. How does that logic work?

	]
	:That's kind of like asking why universities publish books by professors and experts in the field and not stuff by me. It's not the directionality of the posting but rather the content. If you vandalize, your posts are vandalism. See ] for more information. ] 04:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	I apologize! Ted showed me the "Vandalism". I promise, it was not me... at least not intentionally. I was trying to respond to you. As I recall, when I responded some error cropped up and I hit the back button and then resent the whole page. Evidently that messed things up. But I promise it was entirely unintentional. I had no idea it did that. I only wanted to reply to you. It was a glitch and perhaps it is my fault but I was not aware it happened. Again, I apologize.

	]

	:Your attempts to leave me a message have been so clumsy that they damaged pre-existing contents of this page, and were identified by a third party as vandalism.

	:As for your various edits, they have shown an overwhelmingly strong bias towards the LDS church, which violates ]. As a result, I have been forced to spend my time repairing some of the more obvious damage that you've caused to these articles.

	:My suggestion, once again, is that you get an account to log in under and then join the other editors on the respective Talk pages of these articles so as to participate in building as consensus, instead of unilaterally making harmful changes. ] 04:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)



	1) Yes, I see that my attempt to leave you a message did some damage. As I said, there was some sort of connection glitch. Not intentional. I have apologized to you. My apology was sincere. Do you bear a grudge nevertheless?

	2) You are wrong to imagine I am so biased for the LDS, I am too cynical for that -- but I am not biased against them either. I could however, say that your bias is against the LDS Church -- or if not them, then against me. Wouldn't that violate ]? Just my saying it does not make it so, even though I could probably make as good a case as you could make against me. I agree that I may not state things best all the time but your assumptions of great evil on my part are just wrong. You seem upset that I failed to add comments to justify the changes I made. OK - perhaps that was wrong -- but I did not know it. And that oversite does not make my on-topic, third party, unbiased and annoted comments the same thing as a biased point of view -- even if you think so. (Incidentally, I detect a sense of superiority from you comment about being "forced" to revert. You are NOT forced to go around reverting these things. Its a choice you make. You should not be upset and blame me for your use of time.)

	3. I understand you desire for me to get an account. I believe I can participate on the talk pages without one. Is that not so? Having participated for more than a decade on the Internet, I suspect your desire is associated with a healthy suspicion that I am some sort of troll. I have seen trolls at work in other places and yes, they are annoying. Maybe I seem suspicious to you because I am -- to you -- unidentified. But that lack of identity is not particularly important -- it does not make me a troll. I could, I am sure, develop several names here and run around all day and do all sorts of mischief if that were my goal. But have some charity. I am not interested in that. But I do not want to get use an account just yet. Is that really so bad?

	4. Finally, you talk of unilateral harmful changes. But that is what you do when you revert -- your reverts are unilateral (or do you claim you had a vote?) and they are harmful in that they retain a non-neutral point of view. The first instructions I got when I came here was:

	Don't be afraid to edit—anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold (but please don't vandalize)! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, and fix it. You can't break Misplaced Pages. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Misplaced Pages the best information source on the Internet!

	That was sincerely my only goal. I spent far more time in research on my edits than you took to revert. Hours of time to be sure that what I wrote was correct and accurate and hopefully unbiased. However, you took it as some sort of evil thing. If you are so interested in discussion, why not talk about it BEFORE you revert. Maybe I could correct your concerns.

	Maybe you just had a bad day and felt unpleasant, but I do not think you treated me fairly.



	] 05:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Incidents board ==

	] Thought you might be interested.

	] 05:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	:And did you see my response to ]? Probably not what they were expecting. ] 05:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	Yes, I did. And I do realize that you are not the sort of person who would be all that helpful to his cause, but I guess that he did not realize this. From what I've seen, you're someone who sometimes disagrees with me, but isn't any sort of POV warrior. In short, you're the sort of editor my advertisements in main articles seek to pull in. ] 05:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	:I have a feeling that my personal beliefs would tend to agree with yours more often his on these issues, but I try really hard not to let them become a part of the edits that I make. NPOV is ''my'' goal. ] 05:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	We all have our own personal beliefs, and that's fine. They shouldn't take over our editing, though. When they do, the results are pretty ugly, as recent events demonstrate. ] 05:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	:It looked to me as though you had. If that was in error, my apologies. It was not done in bad faith. ] 00:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	I don't think you quite understand. Even if you were simply mistaken in counting my reversions, trying to get me blocked was a hostile action.

	Now, I've gotten people blocked before, but it was always an action of last resort against an inveterate edit-warrior who could not be reasoned with and who would not stop reverting to their version against the consensus.

	Even then, I've made a habit of alerting editors to the fact that they are close to violating 3RR, and then again once they ''have'' violated it, offering them the chance to just undo their last revert and walk away.

	Your choice to post on ANI/3RR amounted to shooting first, asking questions never. That is completely incompatible with civility and the assumption of good faith, and I hold you accountable for your actions.

	Once you've tried to get someone blocked, things do not typically go right back to normal. It was a bad move on your part, and the damage has already been done. ] 01:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Re: Teenage pregnancy ==

	A teen could become impregnated by many means, like ], or one of the myriad other fertility treatments available.--<strong>]]<sup>(]/])</sup></strong> 01:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	:I suppose that's physically possible. However, I don't know of any doctor who would impregnate a young, unmarried woman, nor any cases where this has occurred. In other words, it's not really relelvant to the issue because it pretty much doesn't happen.
	:The reason the article explicitly mentions that pregnancy comes from sexual intercourse is a counter-reaction to earlier attempts at whitewashing (which made it sound like it was all a matter of storks receiving mistaken directions). It is not intended to limit the possible medical sources of impregnation, or even things such as "splash pregnanancy", so the added parenthentical served mostly to confuse and distract. ] 01:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Pay attention and don't make accusations ==

	''You recently changed the condom article, omitting one error message and misleading on the second (claiming to be reverting non-existent vandalism). This is unacceptable behavior. On top of your earlier attempt to get me blocked for making public service announcements, you have been acting in an unreasonable manner. Al 02:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)''

	:I never claimed to revert vandalism if I did my message would be something along the lines of "rvt - vandalism" not "rw" which is short for RW. So please keep a cool head, ] 02:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	Please, let's be serious. With typical fonts, "rvv" is barely distinguishable from "rw". That's why we don't use "rw" (or was it "rvv"?). You made an edit comment that was misleading. ] 02:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	:I am serious. I never use "rvv" because I always thought that it just meant Revert. Anyways if I mislead you I do assure you it was unintentional - that doesn't mean I'll stop using rw though (look at the center of the "w" and the size to tell the difference). ] 02:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	You're not serious. ] 02:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Remember to ]. ] 03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	Thank you for the reminder. I would, however, like to point out the following text from that article:

	::Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith.

	::This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, it only means that one should not ascribe said action to malice. Automatically accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith regardless of their motivation is failing to assume good faith in itself.

	Chooserr has in fact edit-warred and launched bogus incident reports, as well as encouraging others to do the same. As much as I must assume good faith initially, the article also tells me that I am permitted in these circumstances to supercede my original assumption. Thank you for understanding. ] 04:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	::Alienus, I am serious so please don't tell me other wise look back through my edits and you'll see me having use "rw" (that is with a w incase you can't tell) since I got here. Also I didn't believe that my report was false and still don't think you should post links on barely related pages. One more thing before I end this little rant...YOU EDIT WAR AS WELL. ] ] 04:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	Thank you for sharing that. ] 04:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Not that you asked, but I've certainly seen Chooserr user "rw" to mean reword before, and I've always noticed that it looks a lot like "rvv". I don't doubt his good faith at all. -]<sup>(])</sup> 04:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	Neither two nor three letters suffice to document a rewrite. A useful edit comment for a rewrite would not only be immediately distinguishable from a revert but would specify what is rewritten and for what reason. Look at any of my edits for plenty of good examples. ] 04:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	:I'm not disagreeing with you, Al. I still don't doubt Chooserr's good faith. -]<sup>(])</sup> 05:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	Good faith and good sense do not always go hand in hand. In any case, even if I extend the assumption of good faith with regards to his poor choices in his edit comments, it doesn't help with the bogus incident report or his incitement of a bogus 3RR report, or his ongoing edit-warring (which he freely admits to above). ] 06:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	::I'm not one to deny the truth so do admit edit warring (as you too ought to do) however I'm curious about my bogus 3RR report. When exactly did this happen? ] ] 08:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	:::Yeah. I'm beginning to resent the implication that I'm under the influence of of another editor, which you've liberally spread over several pages. If you have a problem with me, fine, but you damn well better have some proof that Chooserr "incited" me to something. I looked at the history of a page, saw that you had a large number of reverts, and didn't look closely enough to see that you had managed to avoid 3RR. It was an honest mistake but if you want to build up all kinds of ill will, so be it. I've apologized, but apparently that means nothing to you. ] 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	Hey, if you want to take full credit for trying to get me blocked, feel free.

	I'm going to spell this out for you: even if you ''can'' get someone blocked, it doesn't mean you should. Blocking is a hostile act, done as a last resort, not something you just do for the fun of it. When people violate 3RR, it's almost always an accident, and is often the result of provocation. In such cases, a block isn't really going to help. The only time a block is justified is when they've been warned that they're about to violate the rule but don't care and won't stop themselves.

	So, even if I did violate 3RR (and, as it happens, I did not), reporting me so I get blocked would have been a really bad idea. At the very least, it is guaranteed to sour a working relationship for good, undercut all efforts at assuming good faith, and generally piss people off. Is that your goal? ] 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	:For good? I hope not. I made a mistake. I apologize. What more do you want, my index finger? ] 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	Actually, you're probably thinking of the pinky, which is what disgraced Yakuza amputate. However, my taste for human flesh is quite limited, so I'll settle for your apology, which I've accepted. An apology doesn't fix everything, but a genuine one does go a long way. ] 04:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	:I was really thinking about ] from ''].'' ] 04:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	Ah, that explains all the stored-up blood you keep in your fridge. You need a hobby. ] 04:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Sources ==

	Here are a few sources - I'll find more if you want but despite abortionviolence's bias and inclusion of domestic disputes about abortion as abortion violence it has quite a few examples of violence against pro-lifers.

	*
	*
	*

	] ] 08:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	:The day will come when you come to understand what a reliable source is. Sadly, today is not that day. ] 08:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	Can we ] now he has an image in his signature? BTW you ''really'' should be asleep! ] 08:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	:It's hard to tell from the other side of the monitor, but I actually ''am'' asleep. Refuting Chooserr's arguments does not require my full wakefullness, so I can accomplish it during the REM cycle.
	:No, we can't stone him, although I do find it funny that he hoists the Papal flag much as a pirate would show the skull and bones. It seems almost like self-parody. ] 08:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	::Well it's not exactly the papal flag (see ]). And even then I've seen it used in other ways...and places. ] ] 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Once again, you really need to assume good faith and research your acccusations==
	/sigh Please check my talk page. I'll make it easy for you, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Avraham#AfD_vote . Jay informed me that I had my vote in the wrong place, and I was being polite and thanking him for the heads-up that I had voted after the comments. An ever so slight amount of research goes a long way in preventing oneself from 1) causing bad feeling 2) making unfounded accusations and 3) looking slightly foolish. -- ] 17:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	:From what I saw, I made a fair deducation to a reasonable conclusion. I'll follow up on what you said, and if you're correct then I'll retract my statement. ] 18:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	Thank you. -- ] 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Assuming good faith works both ways; an honest error deserves an honest correction. Actually, this applies more to Jayjg than to you. ] 18:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	==BI article==
	I did remove the string implants. They are completely banned, and there is no adjunct study, unlike silicone implants. At the very least, let's discuss all of this on the discussion page.
	That is what was originally agreed by others. i think we should honor that.] 00:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	== spicy nugget ==

	Do you have evidence that spicypickle is a sock puppet for spicynugget? I am not accusing you of anything. On the contrary, I am asking you if you think this is a potential problem we need to look at more closely. ] \| ] 13:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Understood and no insult taken. No, I do not have evidence at this time, but I'm keeping an eye out. ] 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Morphic field ==

	You have got a lot of gall to call my single edit to the article "edit warring". All I did was add the 'fact' template to your unsourced addition. It is ] who reverted my change and who is edit warring. — ] ] 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	:At this point, the article is a battlefield, and it would take some time to wade through the history to see who fired which shot. Suffice it to say that there's a whole lot of edit-warring going on, some offensive, some defensive, some less easily classifiable. ] 14:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Corniated1bast blocked ==

	] has been blocked for 24 hours for posting personal abuse and obscenities in edit summaries on your page. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Thanks. I'm assuming this is a sock-puppet of someone who knows me from some previous experience. Not sure who, though. ] 19:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	Hey, no problem. If he or she comes back and does it again, let me know and I'll block any of their sockpuppets. When I saw that this is part of an ungoing campaign using multiple identities, as per arbcom decisions in the past I extended the block from 24 hours to indefinitely. I hope it stops it. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 19:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	:I hope so, too. This is really silly. ] 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I have reverted and blocked indef numerous sockpuppets. I also semi-protected your talk and userpages. I tried unprotecting, but the vandalism continued. Shoot me a message on talk when you want the pages unprotected.--] <sup>(])</sup> 21:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Thanks again. Actually, I'm not sure I mind semiprotection that much. Still, I should probably only leave it up for a few days, then take it down. I'll drop you a note soon. ] 21:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


	==]==

	Hi Alienus,

	Just thought I'd let you know that this one was also deleted, and its deletion is now being debated.

	Semi-protect of your user pages is ''good''. Have you ever gotten a useful message from an anon? I haven't. Certainly the messages which necessitated your semi-protect weren't very useful. Unfortunately, admin pulled the plug on my last user talk semi-protect (though I think my user page still has it?), but if I'd my way, it'd be permanent.

	Anyhow, come join the fun on deletion review if you like.] 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:It doesn't happen often, but I think I've gotten messages here from anons a few times. Ndru01, for example, left some. Still, it doesn't happen often and I've never gotten one I'd miss.

	I checked out DRV and wanted to bang my head against the wall. Is this a normal reaction? ] 07:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, entirely, these days. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:I wouldn't know, as I just arrived there the other day...but I wouldn't rule it out.

	:This would seem to be the ''big debate'' on wikipedia nowadays. You've spoken of cabals, and while I've questioned some of your identifications thereof, I don't doubt there is some truth to what you've said, even less, that such cabals exist. We can't really prevent them, but we ''can'' hinder their formation by killing userboxes under proposed T2. As this isn't yet policy, all we can do is to vote as if it were, until it is. That's my take, at least.] 08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	I've spoken of cabals, but I'm not sure if that's quite the correct word, and I'm quite sure it's a fairly counterproductive one. As I see it, there are two major problems facing Misplaced Pages today, and both of them come from the inside.

	First, there is a natural tendency for people with similar views to band together. Even without any sort of prior planning, the net result can be equivalent to a cabal. The universal symptom is that a group of articles is closely guarded by a revolving cast of characters who manage to thwart legitimate efforts by outsiders, with the result of causing the articles to be biased. When push comes to shove, this problem can only be addressed by admin intervention.

	Which brings us to the second problem: admins. We have too many of them -- in excess of 800, which makes quality control impossible. Anyone who keeps their head down and does routine editing for a little while can get a sysop bit, but once they have it, you have to pry it from their cold, dead hands. The ostensible reason we have so many is to deal with vandalism, but the bulk of vandalism comes from anon IP's and known vandals, both of which can be better handled programatically.

	I would recommend the following:

	1) All admins serve for a limited period of time, and cannot regain adminship until a cooldown period expires. Regaining adminship is not automatic, and all admins are held fully accountable for prior actions.

	2) Editing of articles is restricted to logged-in users. Sorry, Jimbo, but the truth is that, even now, not ''everyone'' can edit Misplaced Pages. Let's just admit it up front and avoid wasting all our time reverting vandalism.

	3) Removal of all political and religious self-identification, whether it be through account names, user boxes, categories or slogans (see ]). Randomized assignment of disinterested admins to articles that are hot-spots, combined with strict rules forbidding admins from using their powers on articles they contribute to.

	4) A general softening of rules to prevent sudden-death situations and draconian punishments. For example, rather than immediately blocking anyone who accidentally violates 3RR, require that users be informed of such violations and be given a chance to undo their last edit. This prevents people getting blocked for accidents, miscounting or disagreements about what constitutes a revert. Likewise, change ] so that it does not apply to the contents of your own user and talk pages. Let people rant all they like, on a page nobody else has to see. This would, among other things, prevent double-punishment of users who are pissed about being blocked.

	Anyhow, I'll get off my soapbox for now. ] 15:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:I particularly like, "Randomized assignment of disinterested admins to articles that are hot-spots, combined with strict rules forbidding admins from using their powers on articles they contribute to." This is an important one to counter the practical creation of "cabals" in as much as they do exist. I see as a problem that admins of the same POV get together to seem to guard certain articles/ subjects that are closely connected to their own personal beleif system, esp. religious in nature. Despite any good intentions, assuming good faith here, the end result is not the best for producing a balanced and neutral article, and it does not look good to see a concentration of editors and admins getting together to focus on those subjects in which they have this personal devotions and direct interest in. I think it does affects their ability to play an even handed role when outside POV's attempt to balance the content, esp. when they are critical in nature.
	:To fix this admins should be removed from the politics/religion of their own personal beliefs as they are too close to the subjec to be impartial, just as if they were in an edit conflict with an editor and are not allowed to use their admin powers to affect their edit dispute. Hoovering about the articles/subjects and then intervening on one side, as long as they dont edit directly should not be an allowable loop hole to defeat the spirt of this good rule (that is not always followed). The point is to get admins who do not have a vested interest and are not strongly interested in pushing a POV in these subject to have more influence while keeping out those who are too closely connected with it out, if not for countering the real problems of cabal tendencies, then at least for the countering the perception of this noticable by outsiders. Let them play a role on the talk pages much the same way that an autobiographical article on a notable editor is not the place for that editor to write about himself, but he can't contribue to the talk page. Same in principal. ] 20:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	I've read that, in the old USSR, a standard practice was to station soldiers far away from their home regions, precisely so as to guarantee objectivity in case there's a need to use force on the locals. The same logic should apply to Misplaced Pages's armed troups; the admins.

	The goal here is to make sure admins do not use their powers to punish the behavior of people they disagree with over content. This means that admins who want to enforce rules involving an article (or the editors on that article) must avoid doing any editing of their own. They can still revert outright vandalism, of course, but anything else is taboo, including comments on the talk page. After all, once you actively take sides, it doesn't matter if you're doing the editing or helping someone else do it.

	The key, though, is in bringing outside admins at random, rather than allowing an involved admin to message their buddy to come in and help them out (such as when Jayjg summoned Connelley). All we need is a simple mechanism that randomly assigns a case to any admin who has logged in during the previous 24 hours. ] 21:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Your posts here are very interesting. I should like to comment upon them when I have the chance, which unfortunately is not now. But soon.] 21:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	Ok, though maybe this isn't the right venue. Isn't there supposed to be a place for this sort of thing? Perhaps that village pump? ] 21:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Clearer? ==

	In reference to , I disagree with your conclusion that it was "clearer before." Who thinks that sexual orientation should be overcome? What is a situation in which there is no sexual orientation? This phrasing is actually meaning that a ''homosexual'' sexual orientation should be overcome. Can you think of an example (other than celibacy for Roman Catholic priests) in which people argue that a heterosexual orientation should be overcome?--] 12:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:As my comment suggests, the issue was more clarity than content. Let me see if I can edit it to fix both. ] 15:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	==Your edit to ==
	Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as ] and may get you ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:Tpv2 --> --]] 20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:I do not consider my edits to be vandalism in any sense, and disagree strongly with any suggestion to the contrary. As such, I do not see your warning as valid. Thank you for understanding. ] 21:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	For the record, I posted a message to the editor's talk page to follow up on this, but it was summarily deleted. How ]. ] 21:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:As did you. --]] 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	(edit conflict)
	And when I followed up with a <nowiki>{{civil}}</nowiki>, reminding him that deleting without responding is generally considered rude, he deleted it, too. Clearly, this is a Wikipedian who does not ] or act ]. I'm very disappointed. I do note that, by some coincidence, he is Catholic, just like Chooserr. This is a fine example of how people naturally group together to act unfairly, without even needing a cabal, as such. ] 21:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	Actually, your misguided warning is right here. I didn't delete it. Clearly, you are mistaken. ] 21:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Clearly.
	:My point was... You are asking that I assume that your deletion of Chooserr's addition to his own talk page was made in good faith. You are admonishing me for a lack of civility while, at the same time, finding some kind of correlation between my faith (which you must have investigated) and my presumed lack of civility.
	:All of this wikilawyering of yours stems from a simple warning that unwarranted deletions from another user's talk page could be seen as vandalism.
	:As for my deletions of your edits to my talkpage... I don't need the clutter, thanks. --]] 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	Ellis, Alienus is '''''completely right.''''' While I oppose abortion, and have no problem with people donating to the Church, such solicitation (complete with link) has ''no'' place on Misplaced Pages, user talk page, user page or otherwise. Alienus should be commended for improving Misplaced Pages, not threatened. And while I generally agree that whether an editor is Catholic or not should play little or no part in our discussion, I have to admit that he has a point here, as much as if you were a Scientologist and were reprimanding him for removing solicitation for the COS.] 02:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	UPDATE: I've left a message on Chooserr's talk page. If he doesn't remove it on his own, I think a post on ] is appropriate.] 02:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	::You'll note that I didn't touch <s>Elliskev's</s>Chooserr's user page, since that's where people go to find out more about an editor. Going there, however, is optional. In contrast, the talk page is mandatory, because I have to visit it in order to leave him any messages. In such cases, I shouldn't have to be subjected to advertising for his pet ideology. Like Tim, I'm skeptical about whether such things are appropriate on a user page, but I'm entirely against their presence on a talk page.
	::In any case, the "don't need the clutter" excuse is just too lame for even my best attempts at assuming good faith. Warnings are not clutter; they're either an error on the part of the warner, which needs correcting, or an error on the part of the warned, which needs repentance. Elliskev, my comments were put in good faith and your immediate deletion of them was very uncivil. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, not only for your actions, but for your attempts to cover up for them afterwards. ] 04:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::"...the "don't need the clutter" excuse is just too lame..."

	:::Once again, Alienus is '''''completely right'''''. There was nothing about his messages which would have meritted deletion, and judging from the user talk page content which ''hasn't'' been deleted...well, let's just say "clutter" is in the eye of the beholder.] 04:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Nothing else is a reprimand about civility in response to a templatized warning. In this case I'm using "clutter" as a euphemism for "irrelevant reprimand about AGF and CIVIL." --]] 15:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::Alienus: 'You'll note that I didn't touch <s>Elliskev's</s>Chooserr's user page, since that's where people go to find out more about an editor. Going there, however, is optional. In contrast, the talk page is mandatory, because I have to visit it in order to leave him any messages. In such cases, I shouldn't have to be subjected to advertising for his pet ideology.'
	::::That would be relevant if I had ''any'' advertising or templates or anything similar on my user page or talk page, or if I had any ''"pet ideology"''. I'm sure that it can reasonably assumed that I am Catholic, since ''other editors comments'' on my talk page refer to collaboration efforts to Catholic-themed articles. It's a pretty big stretch to insinuate that I'm some kind of crusading zealot. --]] 15:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	My error: I meant Chooserr, not Elliskev. Chooserr is the one with ideological advertisements on his Talk page. I slashed out your name and replaced it with his, above. As for you being Catholic, no assumption is necessary. ] 15:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Ayn Rand Links ==
	Please see my comments:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ayn_Rand#External_links
	--] 22:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	==BI Article==
	Al, would you please come help us here? Thanks.] 23:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)<p>

	Thanks for catching my error on the UK Times article. You are indeed correct. The other two are indeed about Hyrodgel, if you take a look. I would call the Hydrogel 'limited availability', because it seems in some countries they are available. I have no idea how safe they are, other than reading the articles...] 23:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	==Objectivists' voting==

	"Objectivists vote Republican, not Democrat"?? What idiotic nonsense. You made that up yourself out of nothing. Anyone who should be writing about this would have checked: Ayn Rand herself voted for Republicans on some occasions and Democrats on others (she voted for ], Democrat of New York, precisely because of here opponent's religious-right alignment and his opposition to abortion). She also obviously opposed Ronald Reagan, and did not vote for him (I think she may have sat out that election). ] of the ] endorsed ] in 2004. ] 01:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Wow, thank you for the uncivil tone and the one-sided presentation. For extra credit, was the ARI uniformly behind Bush? Be honest. ] 01:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	==Squee==
	I just wanted to thank you for giving me my first wikipediatric compliment ^____^ ((PAS talk)) ] 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	:You deserved it. Keep up the good work and you'll get more compliments. ] 03:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Chooserr's page ==

	That wasn't cool. -]<sup>(])</sup> 05:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	:But the banner said stop abortion, and nothing stops abortion better than contraception. Women who aren't pregnant ''never'' get abortions, and PP gives out condoms, and sells discounted pills, so it's prevented more abortions than it ever performed. Frankly, anyone who wants to reduce abortion should be enthusiastic about PP.
	:However, if for some reason Chooserr disagrees, I'd be fine if he just took down the whole thing. The Talk page really isn't the best place for it anyhow. Frankly, leaving it there would violate ], and we wouldn't want that, would we? ] 05:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	::I've always thought of you as an adult; why are you suddenly talking like a smart-ass teenager? I think you know what it means to actually be respectful. -]<sup>(])</sup> 05:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	Hey, I'll have you know that I'm considered very mature for a 12 year old. Thank you for asking. ] 05:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	:GTBacchus, I agree that Alienus' addition of his own link was absolutely inappropriate. Hostility towards Chooserr's political position isn't a good reason to remove the solicitation, and there can be no good reason to add his own in place thereof. Chooserr's editorial statement is unwikipedian, but falls within the current understanding of the allowable. However, Chooserr's use of user space to link to and solicit donations to a third party violates policy, and must be removed.] 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	Hmm, no, it wasn't a matter of disagreeing with his political position. I can disagree with someone someone's politicial position while otherwise being just fine with them, and their user page.

	The issue here is that he chooses to subject visitors not only to a political slogan but solicits them for donations. This is excessive.

	I sought to gently draw attention to it using humor, while still staying factually accurate. PP has prevented more abortions than all of these pro-life groups could ever hope to. Despite this, I don't put a solicitation for PP on ''my'' Talk page, or even have a political slogan. ] 06:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Alienus, Do you think anyone would care if you were to put up a political slogan? I certainly wouldn't so please don't vandalise my page. ] 06:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	We've already ascertained that you see no problem with sloganeering on a Talk page, so that's not really very interesting. And we've already seen that vandalism is not my action or my motive. In short, there's not much to say here. ] 13:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	] This is your '''final warning'''. Stop ] the ] page or you will be ] from further editing. To be perfectly clear, the specific edit I am talking about is .] 16:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	:The action that you gave me a formal warning for was not vandalism. In fact, not long after my work was undone, an admin saw fit to re-do it. Clearly, your warning is in error so I will assume good faith by disregarding it, without suggesting that you're wikistalking me. Got it? ] 18:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	:: The funniest part is how your edit summary disagrees with what you just wrote. You're funny. In the interests of assuming good faith, I will assume that you thought I meant that removing Chooserr's partisan solicitation was inappropriate. What I was actually referring to was your substituting his inappropriate link with one of your own: . No one else has done that, and no one else should. Don't do it again. ] 18:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	As I said above, "I sought to gently draw attention to it using humor, while still staying factually accurate". My replacement link was at least as appropriate as the original and, as the entire banner has been removed by an admin, your various threats after the fact seem like locking the barn door after the cows have left.

	This leaves us with the question of why you even got involved in this. I don't actually have a good answer, since your role here has been entirely superfluous. However, as you often remind me, AGF is not a suicide pact, and given our history, it sure does ''look'' like you're wikistalking me.

	In the end, I don't really care. Whether you act in good faith or bad, it is painfully obvious that you lack the objectivity needed to exercise your sysop bit in any matter involving me. Therefore, I suggest you avoid the appearance of corruption by removing my Talk page from your watch list and actively avoiding me in the future.

	As it stands, it certainly ''appears'' as if you're following me around and waiting for an excuse to block me. Now, I have been civil and I have been patient, but there is no reason for me to put up with this, so if you continue with your behavior, I will report you on ]. No more warnings. Just walk away. ] 18:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Nandesuka, you're too far out on a limb on this one.

	:Yes, Alienus' diff was obnoxious. He'd already been warned. There's no longer any dispute here - Tony Sidaway solved it. So why perpetuate it?] 19:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	::Why the hell am I getting into this?
	::Anyway. Nandesuka was '''entirely''' in the right. Sidaway was not. Nothing was 'solved.'
	::This is not an issue to be dealt with unanimously - see the discussion above concerning ''my'' warning to Alienus. This is an issue to be dealt with by the wikicommunity. Take it up at ANI or wherever the hel ele it makes sense. It's not for one admin to decide, and it's definitely not for one editor to decide. --]] 01:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	Thank you for your comments, but I'm done talking about this. ] 01:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	Interesting how "done talking about this" you really are - after lurking aobut on my talk page and then going over to give Elliskev your "keep a cool head" sermon. ] 02:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Interesting how, although I was done talking a while ago, your buddy can't seem to keep a civil tongue in his mouth. ] 03:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	::Alienus, what it basically amounts to is that you are spying on my talk page, and then pretending to be a non-involved enlightened party on Elliskev's talk page. The message was addressed to me, and helped me cope with Tony Sidaways' unfair "warnings" along with your stupid Planned Parenthood link. ] 05:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Yes, you figured me out; having something on my watch list is spying. I spy on hundreds of articles, because I'm just that nosy. Glad that's all settled. Thank you so much for outing me as a super-spy. Please contact Homeland Security; I'm sure they'll want to round me up, along with the rest of us al-Quaida moles. ] 17:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	::I spy with my little watch list something beginning with......

	::(I don't think he understands what a wiki is). ] 17:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:It's something to light a candle-i with, right? ] 17:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:: So just to clarify, based on what you've said here: if I have something on my watchlist and comment on it, I'm "wikistalking", but if you do the same thing, and someone makes the same accusation, it deserves dripping sarcasm. Is that the size of it?
	:: (My personal opinion is that the accusation is deserving of dripping sarcasm whether it's made by Chooserr ''or'' you. But that's neither here nor there). ] 00:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Your signature ==

	... you might consider changing your signature so that it doesn't look like you're the banned user {{User\|AI}}. Just a suggestion; I saw your sig and said "what's AI doing back? ... heck, what's AI doing being reasonable?" -- ] 00:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Or I could just stop being reasonable, so you'd think I ''was'' the banned Al. :)
	:I used to use Alienus, but I wound up shortening it to Al for a few good reasons. I certainly don't mean to impersonate someone else, particularly someone who's even less well loved than I am. Maybe I could do something else to distinguish myself from him. Did he use colors or an image or anything like that? ] 00:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	::Just change your colour. When I had to change my complicated username I said I didn't want to get mixed up with ] (who never edits but you never know). The consensus seemed to be that as long as I used a different colour I'd be OK. ] 18:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Thanks, that could work. ] 18:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	== You're right ==

	I agree with you in this case :) - ] \| ] 18:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Must admit, there are some similarities. Certain admins just shouldn't have been involved. I said nothing, due to our own conflict on talk Christianity, but in retrospect - well, I don't know.] 18:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	My feelings on this are quite simple: accidents happen. If something uncivil slips out by accident but you immediately remove it before anyone else can comment on it, then we should give you the benefit of the doubt. It's all part of assuming good faith, rather than looking for an excuse to block. And there can be no clearer apology than doing your best to unsay what was said.

	Of course, I got blocked by Nandesuka for 72 hours, and then InShaneee really dropped the ball by extending it to a whole week based on misunderstanding something unrelated. In contrast, Moshe got unblocked already. Looks like equal treatment for equal crimes is not something we can count on. ] 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	Kinda a rude thing to say right after I was trying to be friendly.- ] \| ] 20:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:I don't think it's rude, and even if so, it's certainly not rudeness directed at you. It's not your fault that you have admins who support you. If I am being rude towards anything, it is this abstract entity called Misplaced Pages, which has great difficulty managing to be at all fair.
	:So please don't take any personal insult from this: I assure you that if it had been my intention to insult you personally, you would know it for sure. ] 20:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Don't you think it would be better ==

	...if you just leave him alone? This is an honest question. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	I'm leaving him entirely alone. However, I'm not leaving his buddy's incivil comments towards me alone, since the rules tell me not to. One day, you'll need to explain why ''I'' get complaints when I remove a remark that calls me a "jackass", but when I generously grant that Jake didn't really need the foreskin that he chose to have removed, I get blocked for a week. In specific, you'll need to explain how it's not a double standard. Thank you. ] 20:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:That's not what I was complaining about, it turns out. Careful what you assume. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Actually, I wasn't complaining. I was asking an honest question, which you neglected to answer. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	You're going to need to speak more clearly. Who do you want me to leave alone and why? ] 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:I'm actually not saying what I want you to do. The best way to understand my words is to read them, and take their literal meaning as my intent, not something else. When I say "X", and someone replies "What do you mean, Y, Z and Q?", my answer is, "I don't. I mean X." I'm asking you a question: Do you not think it would be better if you leave Chooserr alone? I know you removed an attack from his page, and that was fine, and then you decided you were the one to leave him a welcome message. Do you really think that's better than leaving him alone? Do you think it's likely to be taken in the right spirit, considering you guys' history? That's my question, now re-asked, and elaborated, for clarity. I await an answer, or perhaps another guess at what I'm "really" saying. I'm not telling you that it would be better - I'm asking what you honestly think. Please respond to my honest question with an honest answer, please. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	No, I honestly don't. I don't see how putting a welcome message could be taken as any sort of insult, particularly when I had just removed an insult placed by a third party, and the talk page therefore looked barren. If for some reason he wants to remove the welcome, I'll shrug and stand aside.

	Unless he stops editing the articles on my watch list, I don't see how I can "leave him alone". It's fair to ask me to be gentle and not hold our previous interactions against him, but it's not reasonable to ask me to walk away and let him make damaging changes to articles I work on. ] 20:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Good thing I'm not asking you that. Do you find it very difficult to believe that I'm not telling you what to do? -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	Since you choose not to be specific, my answer takes the shotgun approach by covering more than one possibility. ] 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:In that case, I'll just agree wholeheartedly with your statements above about what's fair to ask you, and what isn't reasonable to ask you, and I'll note that I haven't done either. I think I was extremely specific in the post above with the 20:36 timestamp, and I honestly have no idea how I could have been more specific and clear there. I asked one specific question, and that's specifically all I was doing. You replied to approximately five messages that I didn't communicate, and I practically had to beg you to repond to the one thing I was communicating. I find that kind of interesting. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Just a little something to brighten up your day :) ==

	<div style="float:{{{float\|left}}}; border:solid 1px black; margin:1px;">
	{\| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px; background:{{{info-background\|{{{2\|#ffd700}}}}}};"
	\| style="width:45px; height:45px; background:{{{logo-background\|Romarin}}}; text-align:center; font-size:{{{logo-size\|{{{5\|14}}}}}}pt; color:{{{logo-color\|#00008b}}};" \| '''{{{logo\|{{{3\|]}}}}}}'''
	\| style="font-size:{{{info-size\|10}}}pt; padding:4pt; line-height:1.25em; color:{{{info-color\|#00008b}}};" \| ''']''' would like to give you a '''HUG'''
	\|}</div>

	<!-- Type {{User give hug\|USERNAME}} to personalize this template -->

	== Olive Branch ==

	OK. Let's start over. You think that I'm persecuting you, and I think that you're a POV warrior who plays fast and loose with the rules. I am willing to believe that I might be wrong, and that we have just gotten off on several hundred wrong feet. I hope that you're willing to believe that you might be wrong too. Let's try to go back to the beginning.

	First off, I ask that you remove the auto-revert on me, Jakew, and Jayjg. I think that that sort of preemptive policy on a talk page prevents civil discourse on a fundamental level. While I can't promise to never leave a message on your talk page, I can promise this: when I have something to say to you, I'll say it directly, in my own words, without using a template.

	I think our recent mediation experience shows that it is at least ''possible'' for us to communicate civilly with each other, even when we disagree. I'm willing to try if you are. ] 00:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:14, 14 July 2013

Redirect to:

User:Alienus