| Revision as of 22:17, 26 April 2006 editAqui venho do novo, John (talk | contribs)1 editNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:08, 26 April 2006 edit undoStillnotelf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers3,603 editsm Revert to revision 50308083 using popupsNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{divbox|blue|] {{!}} ]|}} | |||
| :::<span style="font-size:large;">''''']'''''</span> | |||
| {{divbox|blue|If you talk here, I'll reply here. If I talk ''there'', please reply ''there''.|}} | |||
| {{User:John Reid/archive}} | |||
| ] | |||
| == WP:HORSE? == | |||
| {{wikify-date|March 2006}} | |||
| I'm not sure that ] is the best acronym for your essay - the first place I saw it, (without having read the policy), I thought it meant "I think Statement A is horse shit". Maybe ] would be better - the point of the article is about the legs, anyway, not the horse: a cow could've been used. Maybe I have a dirty mind. I've refrained from changing it, since it's your essay :) -- <font color="#668353">]</font> <font color="#F8FCFF">]</font> 23:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Prison rape''' commonly refers to the ] of ] in ], usually by other inmates but occasionally corrections staff. The latter is more often the case in female prison populations. Physically weaker or isolated inmates, or those not schooled in street culture, are particularly vulnerable to prison rape. Due to the same-sex nature of prisons, prison rape brings with it many (often false) implications and assumptions regarding sex roles and sexual orientation. There appears to be significant variation in the rates of prison rape by race, as documented by ] ]. Usually in ] male prisons, perpetrators seem to be mostly ] (see also ]). Victims tend to be weak or isolated ] men. | |||
| : Please make any needed improvement with my blessing. You can set as many shortcuts as the rest of the community will allow you. It's certainly not important to me. Thanks for reading the essay. ]] 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Male rapists in prison typically identify themselves as heterosexual and project any homosexual feelings they might have onto the victim, often stating that they have made a ] or "punk" of their victim or "turned him out". Furthermore, to deny the ultimately ] nature of the activity, they may feel threatened by new arrivals who refuse to rape men or coerce sex from men, as it threatens to reveal this bedrock truth. In contrast, other men, at the time of their incarceration, even those with non-gay identities in the "free" world, will sometimes claim to be gay in order to be sent to the "gay tank." These segregated units exist in some prisons to reduce the violence, sexual and otherwise, to which normatively gay prisoners would be treated in the general populations. Non-gay men sometimes wish to be placed in the "gay tank" on the belief that the risk of sexual violence will be less likely there than in other contexts. | |||
| : I see you've made the change; and I think I understand your point. You're thinking about ''horse's ass''; that's certainly not my intent. I've added the singular, too, since I'm more likely to write something like ''Sorry, but I think that's a ].'' ]] 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The boundaries of sexual orientation in prison are easily confused and confusing, and follow different cultural rules than in the non-prison world. As far as male prison sex in general is concerned, the reigning idea is that "active" role is carried out by a self-identified ] during ] even to the extent two men are involved. By contrast, the "passive" role, be it either a rape victim or a willing partner, is typically thought of as homosexual. Many times, men in the free world who were gay prior to incarceration (and those who thereafter who were "made" into a "punk") are often thought of as being beyond the category of those who can be raped; their consent may simply be assumed by other prisoners and guards even when the activity is observed. It is for this reason that prison rape is so frequently underreported, according to studies who have surveyed men after incarceration. | |||
| == Your probably false claims about the template subnational entities == | |||
| That said, the individual roles assumed during forced homosexual intercourse cannot be strictly delineated. The rapist may have forced the victim to penetrate him, and the actual act of rape may not necessarily be limited to the rapist as penetrator. The act might be likely achieved by brute-force, but by coercion or blackmail. | |||
| *You indirectly claimed there has been at least one reincarnation, please consider to remove your claim or to provide evidence of re-] (s). If you just took the words of Willy, then I suggest to take more care with what he says. -- ] ] 18:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| According to ], there are now more men raped in prisons in the United States than women being similarly assaulted on the outside. They estimate that one quarter of a million inmates are getting raped each year, that young men are five times more likely to be attacked, and that the prison rape victims are ten times more likely to contract a deadly ]. Although it is beyond question that rape behind bars occurs, the extent of the problem as documented by Stop Prison Rape is unclear given selection bias during data collection (which results in an increased likelihood of overestimation). Many human rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch and Stop Prisoner Rape, claim that prison officers tolerate rape as a means of controlling the prison population in general. | |||
| Please ]. Thank you. ]] 20:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Suicide amongst rape victims is a problem of unknown proportions. The mother of a rape victim who committed suicide in prison testified in Congress that a prison warden told her before her son’s suicide that, "This happens to everybody. Learn to deal with it. It’s no big deal."{{ref|testimony}} | |||
| *I did not read it, because false claims are not a matter of opinion. You may read ] . ] ] 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Prisoner rape law in the United States== | |||
| According to the same source new Federal Law, was passed in the United States in 2003. | |||
| Okay; that's your opinion. You have not changed mine; I'm sorry. ]] 02:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| According to the same website, | |||
| So you still spread false claims after being made aware of it. What is the diff to ]ing? ] ] 02:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''The bill calls for the gathering of national statistics about the problem; the development of guidelines for states about how to address prisoner rape; the creation of a review panel to hold annual hearings; and the provision of grants to states to combat the problem. "Unfortunately, in many facilities throughout the country sexual abuse continues virtually unchecked," said Stemple. "Too often, corrections officers turn a blind eye, or in the case of women inmates, actually perpetrate the abuse. We hope federal legislation will not only create incentives for states to take this problem seriously, but also give facilities the tools and information they need to prevent it."'' | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="below copied from: ]" style="{{divstylegreen}}"><center><b>below copied from: ]</b></center> | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| I direct your attention to ]. This is official policy here -- not a guideline, not a proposal, not a suggestion. I take exception to your comments both on my talk page and at TfD. I do you here the courtesy of ''not'' linking a diff. | |||
| #{{note|testimony}} Bruntmyer's testimony is found in Prison Rape Prevention (2002). | |||
| I do not ''agree'' with you, Sir. You do not agree with me. That is perfectly acceptable to me and to most of our membership. I am entirely willing that you uphold your position. I have explained my reasoning as far as I am willing and ''that'' is acceptable to most of us. You have used language that treads perilously close to '''Calling someone a liar...'''; if indeed it does not do so directly. That is ''not'' acceptable. I don't find merit in hounding editors who speak rudely to me; but I do suggest that there are short-tempered editors who nonetheless will seize upon any incivility you direct toward them to drag you through every possible dispute resolution process. Please have a care, friend. ]] 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| : You made an unproven claim, you did not change it. It seems that to me spreading false claims is not as acceptable as it is to you. It is no courtesy of all not to link to diffs. I would especially appreciate that you link to diffs that bring evidence for your claims. ] ] 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Sir: I hope you will try to appreciate that I am trying to avoid an uncivil dispute. If you had confined yourself to the remark above, on your own talk page, I would have been glad to ignore it. '''That is a courtesy.''' You continue to mark my talk page, too, demanding a response. ''This is it,'' the last response you will get from me on this subject. If you are unhappy with it then I must beg your forgiveness. If you feel I have ill-used you then I offer my apology. If you feel I have violated project policy then I encourage you to file an RfC for my education. I shall permit you to comment freely on my talk for a short time, uninterrupted. And now I bid you, Sir, a good day. ]] 02:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==External links and references== | |||
| : Is sticking to false claims civil? Then I don't care much about your idea of civilty. I don't care about your offering of appology on that I feel ill-used. I care about truth. It seems you don't, and get education more from RfC than the edit history of {{{Subnational entity}}}. Spreading false claims on purpuse is IMO ]ing. You can't put this away by starting calling me Sir. Better than switching to Sir would be switch to truth. ] ] 03:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)</div> | |||
| * | |||
| *— Human Rights Watch report | |||
| *— Organization campaigning against prison rape | |||
| *— A personal account – harrowing but informative ''(explicit sexual references and language)'' | |||
| *Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Since we've already been though this with Conradi for two RfCs and MedCab, I'm planning on filing with ArbComm, probably this weekend (when I have more time). If you'll wait a bit, I'll be happy to notify you.... | |||
| ] | |||
| *:--] 04:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Conradi == | |||
| For the specific issue of the use of "Willy", Conradi has now been blocked once, and given a sharp warning to not repeat. I have noticed the fact that he does just about everything *but* use the word 'liar" when referring to certain people he is in opposition to. I have not called him on it, but I have definitely noticed it. | |||
| I was unaware that there had already been two RfCs filed between him and William. Sigh. If this is all at this level now, even after two RfCs, then William filing an RfAr may be the only choice left. | |||
| OTOH, Conradi has, on his talk page, leveled some serious accusations of WP:CIVIL violations against William. I have asked him to provide specific proof of these accusations. We shall see. I still consider myself a neutral admin in all this, having never interacted with either of the two of them before closing the first massive CFD a week or two back. - ] 18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, I can't pretend to be an uninvolved party but I will step up when called upon. It's a shame. ]] 18:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == My RfA == | |||
| Having fully read ] as well as ] and fully accepting that you will most likely modify your vote to '''Strong Oppose''' for me even mentioning myself on your Talk page specfically in regards to my RfA, but being unable to avoid my own sheer curiosity, what exactly is silly about white text on a maroon background? I am absolutely not looking to try to persuade you to change your vote, but I would like to understand your reasoning. Thanks! ] ] 09:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : It's difficult to read. ]] 04:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Userpage == | |||
| I protected your userpage to stop vandalism to it, let me know when you are ready to have it un-protected. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, I don't know what to say. Protected doesn't give me much of a chance to run up my vandal counter. Oh, wait; I don't ''have'' a vandal counter. Oh well. I think I'm tempted to ask that you unprotect now and I'll hang a notice on my user page so good-willing eds don't waste their time reverting. I can always fix it if I like or just use an old version out of history. Let the annoyed user exhaust himself harmlessly; if he's playing on my page he's not vandalizing an article. It doesn't bother me. But I do thank you sincerely for the interest you've taken. ]] 21:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well no problem, someone posted to ANI about one of the vandals to your page, so... Also if you need a vandalism counter, you can borrow mine ;-). Let me know when you decide, ] <sup>]</sup> 02:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The vandalism seems to have stopped (temporarily at least), do you still want me to unprotect your user and protect your talk page. Alternately, I could protect both, and your subpages... ] <sup>]</sup> 20:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Merger == | |||
| *'''Don't merge'''. Subject of article is good humoured, articulate and easy going. There are no sources cited which prove the subject's relationship with said "bitch". I suggest a redirect and transwiki to ] - transwiki to Wikitionary ;) --] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==You are welcome== | |||
| It is five actually. It is no problem. Thanks.--] ] 22:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It is done. I just reverted your talk. You look at the example. Thanks.--] ] 17:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:08, 26 April 2006
Admin candidates please read this | All stakeholders in discussions please read this If you talk here, I'll reply here. If I talk there, please reply there. • Archives:
WP:HORSE?
I'm not sure that WP:HORSE is the best acronym for your essay - the first place I saw it, (without having read the policy), I thought it meant "I think Statement A is horse shit". Maybe WP:LEGS would be better - the point of the article is about the legs, anyway, not the horse: a cow could've been used. Maybe I have a dirty mind. I've refrained from changing it, since it's your essay :) -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please make any needed improvement with my blessing. You can set as many shortcuts as the rest of the community will allow you. It's certainly not important to me. Thanks for reading the essay. John Reid 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I see you've made the change; and I think I understand your point. You're thinking about horse's ass; that's certainly not my intent. I've added the singular, too, since I'm more likely to write something like Sorry, but I think that's a leg. John Reid 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Your probably false claims about the template subnational entities
- You indirectly claimed there has been at least one reincarnation, please consider to remove your claim or to provide evidence of re-incarnation (s). If you just took the words of Willy, then I suggest to take more care with what he says. -- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Please read. Thank you. John Reid 20:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I did not read it, because false claims are not a matter of opinion. You may read lie . Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay; that's your opinion. You have not changed mine; I'm sorry. John Reid 02:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
So you still spread false claims after being made aware of it. What is the diff to lieing? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I direct your attention to WP:CIVIL. This is official policy here -- not a guideline, not a proposal, not a suggestion. I take exception to your comments both on my talk page and at TfD. I do you here the courtesy of not linking a diff.
I do not agree with you, Sir. You do not agree with me. That is perfectly acceptable to me and to most of our membership. I am entirely willing that you uphold your position. I have explained my reasoning as far as I am willing and that is acceptable to most of us. You have used language that treads perilously close to Calling someone a liar...; if indeed it does not do so directly. That is not acceptable. I don't find merit in hounding editors who speak rudely to me; but I do suggest that there are short-tempered editors who nonetheless will seize upon any incivility you direct toward them to drag you through every possible dispute resolution process. Please have a care, friend. John Reid 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- You made an unproven claim, you did not change it. It seems that to me spreading false claims is not as acceptable as it is to you. It is no courtesy of all not to link to diffs. I would especially appreciate that you link to diffs that bring evidence for your claims. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Sir: I hope you will try to appreciate that I am trying to avoid an uncivil dispute. If you had confined yourself to the remark above, on your own talk page, I would have been glad to ignore it. That is a courtesy. You continue to mark my talk page, too, demanding a response. This is it, the last response you will get from me on this subject. If you are unhappy with it then I must beg your forgiveness. If you feel I have ill-used you then I offer my apology. If you feel I have violated project policy then I encourage you to file an RfC for my education. I shall permit you to comment freely on my talk for a short time, uninterrupted. And now I bid you, Sir, a good day. John Reid 02:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Is sticking to false claims civil? Then I don't care much about your idea of civilty. I don't care about your offering of appology on that I feel ill-used. I care about truth. It seems you don't, and get education more from RfC than the edit history of {{{Subnational entity}}}. Spreading false claims on purpuse is IMO lieing. You can't put this away by starting calling me Sir. Better than switching to Sir would be switch to truth. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Since we've already been though this with Conradi for two RfCs and MedCab, I'm planning on filing with ArbComm, probably this weekend (when I have more time). If you'll wait a bit, I'll be happy to notify you....
Conradi
For the specific issue of the use of "Willy", Conradi has now been blocked once, and given a sharp warning to not repeat. I have noticed the fact that he does just about everything *but* use the word 'liar" when referring to certain people he is in opposition to. I have not called him on it, but I have definitely noticed it.
I was unaware that there had already been two RfCs filed between him and William. Sigh. If this is all at this level now, even after two RfCs, then William filing an RfAr may be the only choice left.
OTOH, Conradi has, on his talk page, leveled some serious accusations of WP:CIVIL violations against William. I have asked him to provide specific proof of these accusations. We shall see. I still consider myself a neutral admin in all this, having never interacted with either of the two of them before closing the first massive CFD a week or two back. - TexasAndroid 18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I can't pretend to be an uninvolved party but I will step up when called upon. It's a shame. John Reid 18:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
Having fully read your notice at the top of your talk page as well as your standards and fully accepting that you will most likely modify your vote to Strong Oppose for me even mentioning myself on your Talk page specfically in regards to my RfA, but being unable to avoid my own sheer curiosity, what exactly is silly about white text on a maroon background? I am absolutely not looking to try to persuade you to change your vote, but I would like to understand your reasoning. Thanks! RasputinAXP c 09:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's difficult to read. John Reid 04:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Userpage
I protected your userpage to stop vandalism to it, let me know when you are ready to have it un-protected. Prodego 19:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know what to say. Protected doesn't give me much of a chance to run up my vandal counter. Oh, wait; I don't have a vandal counter. Oh well. I think I'm tempted to ask that you unprotect now and I'll hang a notice on my user page so good-willing eds don't waste their time reverting. I can always fix it if I like or just use an old version out of history. Let the annoyed user exhaust himself harmlessly; if he's playing on my page he's not vandalizing an article. It doesn't bother me. But I do thank you sincerely for the interest you've taken. John Reid 21:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well no problem, someone posted to ANI about one of the vandals to your page, so... Also if you need a vandalism counter, you can borrow mine ;-). Let me know when you decide, Prodego 02:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- The vandalism seems to have stopped (temporarily at least), do you still want me to unprotect your user and protect your talk page. Alternately, I could protect both, and your subpages... Prodego 20:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Merger
- Don't merge. Subject of article is good humoured, articulate and easy going. There are no sources cited which prove the subject's relationship with said "bitch". I suggest a redirect and transwiki to Smartypants - transwiki to Wikitionary ;) --Alf 21:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome
It is five actually. It is no problem. Thanks.--Dakota ~ 22:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is done. I just reverted your talk. You look at the example. Thanks.--Dakota ~ 17:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)