Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:49, 24 April 2006

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Welcome

Welcome to my Talk page. Please feel free to leave me messages here.

If you respond to me on the Talk page of an article and I don't get back to you promptly, it's ok to drop me a brief reminder. However, please don't have discussions with me here that belong elsewhere, since I'll only have to move the text out to the proper place. If you repeatedly place text here that belongs elsewhere, I will eventually tire of moving it and will instead delete it outright with no further notification. You have been warned. Alienus 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been a number of people have made themselves unwelcome on my Talk page. Any posts by them will be summarily deleted without further comment, as is my right. Alienus 20:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Messages go here

(this is a personal message so I don't know where else to put it)

Alienus,

I don't mind if you delete my comments. It doesn't upset me, or hurt me, and I don't really need warnings, but I think using a user talk page makes much more sense for a private chat than a talk page of one of the million articles on wikipedia. Chooserr 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The right place to talk about an article is the article's talk page. Sometimes this talk overflows to user pages, and that's not always bad, but no consensus can be formed outside of the article's own talk page, where other editors can see what's going on and participate. Alienus 22:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I can count. The first wasn't a revert so I still have at least one more edit. Also I'm not afraid of your reporting me. Chooserr 22:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing text is reverting it to the state it was before the text was added, so your next revert will be your 4th and last before you get banned. Try me. Alienus 22:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I don't really care about trying you Alienus. You certainly are the little POV warrior now. :) Anyways I'm abiding by your wishes and using your talk as a "little reminder" because you might have over looked my most recent comment on the Condoms discussion. Chooserr 22:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If refusing to allow you to delete cited material makes me a POV warrior, then so be it. I'm not the one who has anti-choice slogans plastered all over their user page, so you might want to check on the blackness of your pot before considering my kettle. Alienus 22:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, having a POV doesn't make you a POV warrior. It's the biased view such as when you decided to re-add a section that isn't cited or pertains to a certain section to add a pov into the text. Chooserr 22:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with truly biased people is that they have trouble recognizing just how biased they are. Alienus 22:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I concure that is why we should both be quiet for a few minutes and give you a chance to reflect and determine how to avoid biased edits in the future. Chooserr 23:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and although biased edits annoy me, I'm not going to avoid yours. It's my job to clean up such messes, even if that means wearing gloves and holding my nose. Alienus 23:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism

I found this curious: "proof-of-concept experiment to demonstrate the flaws of libertarianism". Although it rings true; at the same time I ask myself what the alternative would be? - RoyBoy 08:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it rings true: Jimbo's a libertarian and runs Misplaced Pages largely along libertarian lines. As for the alternative, it comes down to a combination of the things that libertarianism doesn't allow or at least doesn't enforce, but are highly beneficial and often essential. Briefly, this includes personal responsibility and accountability, a modicum of centralized authority kept honest through checks and balances, and a system of positive rights and due process. As I'm not running for political office at the moment, I'll leave you with my talking points instead of elucidating my entire platform in detail. Alienus 09:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'm running at 50% intellect with a lack of sleep (renovations and social distractions); but off the cuff don't we already have those things? They certainly are hodgy podgy (and not implemented broadly) as a result of Misplaced Pages being large and run by volunteers. But they are there. (accountability is in history and checkuser; centralized authority is with ArbCom, Jimbo, Office thingy and the community checks and balances – or at least complains everything... or am I missing or assuming something, are we talking about efficiency, rather than capability?) - RoyBoy 08:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss this further when you're running at 100%, but I'll give you a partial answer now, to match your partial intellect. First, part of the issue is that the "highly beneficial and often essential" features that I listed are not enforced, so where they exist at all, it is a local exception to the rule. Second, the big issue is that many of these things simply don't exist.

Fundamentally, the quality of justice you receive depends on the admins who get involved. Many admins are grossly incompetent and/or so severely biased on some issues that their roles are compromised. There are no checks and balances to prevent, detect or punish this. In principle, there are procedures in place, but the burden of proof is so artificially large that it is rare for even the worst admin to lose their badge.

There is nothing even close to due process; at one point, I was banned in error and never had any opportunity to protest. Admins are not held accountable, and neither are the vandals, zealots and other menaces. If anything, the system is more likely to punish the innocent than the guilty, simply because the former have more to lose.

At one point, I reported a 3RR and was myself banned. At another, an admin banned me incorrectly, then banned me some more, just to prove their point. I've been using examples from my own personal experience, but I've seen worse, including false sockpuppet allegations.

Just now, I had to report someone for 3RR, and I'm thinking there's about an even chance they'll ban me, too, just for good measure. When the system is so corrupt and incompetent that anyone trying to report a crime has to fear prosecution, you know it's broken. And, interestestly, it's broken precisely because of the libertarianism. Alienus 09:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well put, I will attempt to address the issue of the 3RR... as it is a matter of policy to "treat all sides equally" in the matter. Which is of course insulting to long time contributors of stable articles. - RoyBoy 19:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Score 1 for the libertarian army. RoyBoy tried to fabricate a 3RR on me and was rejected.--Pro-Lick 22:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You violated the spirit of the 3RR, and you will be blocked accordingly. You'll notice I took the "defeat" in stride and didn't force the issue; perhaps you can learn from that. Apologies Alienus for responding on your talk page. - RoyBoy 23:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why we can't all just get along. Frankly, 3RR is a piece of hogwash anyhow. I'll post a mini-rant later on, explaining just what's wrong with it. For now, remember that what really matters is the content. Is Pro's content better than what the Catholic League wants? Alienus 04:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It is, so? Such a low standard isn't terribly compelling. I hold you in high esteem Alienus; so please reconsider why we "can't just get along". When Pro-Lick doesn't get its way it trolls and WikiLawyers despite large discussions initiated to consider its edits. Then Pro-Lick advocates vandalism; proclaims ABC quakery after preliminary research and thinks this will stand. When Good noted:

I have been banned for a week (and have learned my lesson) over much less than this crap that pro-lick is pulling. Good 23:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't help but agree. The fact I'm pro-choice and was involved with Pro-Lick unneccesarily delayed well deserved meaningful sanctions I should have expedited myself. Pro-Lick's behavior clearly was that of a sock-puppet; I just didn't have compelling evidence to demonstrate it. Pro-Lick stopped editing in good faith some time ago; and it is one of Misplaced Pages's strengths that such users are reprimanded and if necessary banned. "Death" in the lead be damned, Pro-Lick's behavior, just as with weaknesses in Misplaced Pages, drives good contributors away and sucks up the time of those who remain. Whew, that felt good. - RoyBoy 05:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Before I respond, let me just note that Evil hasn't actually learned their lesson. Instead, they're teaming up with other "loyal and obedient" Catholics to attack the peripheries of abortion — pro-life and pro-choice — with the likely goal of setting precedents that will aid in the eventual take-over of the main article.

Anyhow, there are two separate aspects to User:Pro-lick. One is whether their behavior is acceptable, the other is whether their edits have improved the articles. I make few excuses for the former; this sort of behavior is not acceptable, even in light of the unacceptable behavior by various pro-life partisans. Pro's behavior is an embarassment to all Misplaced Pages editors and is a terrible thing. Having said that, despite how they act (and — to a certain extent &mdash because of it), their contributions have improved the articles. Pro is working to overcome ingrained pro-life POV in these articles and sometimes goes over the top. If only they were more cooperative, we could reign in the excess without having to deal with all the BS. Unfortunately, this is not the case, so we have to take one step back after the two steps forward. Then again, it beats standing still or losing ground. Alienus 08:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

While I'm entirely unconvinced the ends justify the means (despite personally implementing some of the improvements "initiated" by Pro-Lick); you're observation of Goodandevil's editing behavior is duly noted. - RoyBoy 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying they do. I'm just saying that we've been handed some lemons, so we need to make lemonade. These changes are out there now, and we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Want any more cliches or is this enough? Alienus 01:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've had recent bad experiences with cliches recently; that will be enough. :"D RoyBoy 05:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? I ask because I've got plenty more where those came from. In fact, I have six of one and half dozen of the other, so you have some choices, too. Alienus 14:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi Alienus. I wonder if you could help me understand something that's bothering me. Do you consider your position regarding the D-word to be the only position compatible with the pro-choice POV? In other words, do you find it contradictory that a person could support defining abortion as "death", and still insist that it remain legal?

I'm mindful of your reminder not to take the whole discussion personally, so I'm backing off a bit, but still thinking hard about it. I tried asking Pro-Lick, who's the one who brought up my POV in the first place, but we don't seem to be on speaking terms. I'm hoping you can help me see where the misunderstanding is coming from. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus 20:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, while I obviously think that my objection to the D-word is reasonable, I don't see how it's a requirement for someone to be pro-choice. If anything, I think that the objection comes less from seeing things from a pro-choice POV than from understanding how someone with the anti-choice POV would see it. It's the distortion inherent in the latter that makes me oppose the inclusion of the word.

I'm rather disturbed that Pro and you aren't getting along. I think you're both generally reasonable people who can disagree without enmity. The fact that you happen to agree on the issue of reproductive rights just highlights the oddity. I'm not known for my tact, but if I can do anything to get you two at least talking, I'm willing to try. Alienus 22:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Helping Verifiability

Please leave a note for GTB User_talk:GTBacchus#Sources.--Pro-Lick 21:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll go look. Alienus 22:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, this doesn't appear to link to anything. Alienus 22:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Under User_talk:GTBacchus#Abortion. Something odd is going on with my editing.--Pro-Lick 22:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

mammalian

Too many mammalian in the lead now, I'll leave you to fix it and keep Pro-Lick from going wild. - RoyBoy 09:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Excessive mention of mammals is the least of our worries, but I'll keep an eye on this and other excesses. In a related matter, it's likely that Goodandevil will be taking a 24-hour mandatory vacation from Misplaced Pages; just thought you'd like to know. Alienus 09:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that why someone called it Wackopedia?

I'm going to avoid talking to him because, quite frankly, what he's talking about is utter nonsense. He referencing pop science quacks and science fictions writers equally. I can't muster any respect for him, and that would make it particularly difficult for me to act civilly...

Neither could I, beleive me!! The two paragraphs, to be frank, represent some of the most god-awful, post-modernistist muddle of miscellaneous malarchy that I was tempted to post it on my user page as the "meaingless quite of the week". I did the best I could to rescue the situation though. We must remain civil. Hopefully, it will eventually be deleted completely as the article evolves in the editing process. I will now go and read Ayn Rand in order to remem--Lacatosias 12:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)ber what, at least, mediocre writing is.

PS. Hoho!! I think I've tranquilized the old boy by allowing him to say "theories/philosophies" instead of

parapychology. He's even allowed the addition of a paragraph that basically states it's all unscientific claptrap. --Lacatosias 13:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work! I'm glad that your calm, level-headed approach worked. There's something to be said for any philosophy that makes Ayn Rand look rigorous. Alienus 16:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

He has "revised" his insertion about 60 times; here is the latest version.

According to some recent theories/philosophies like Infomysticism and TechGnosticism which base themselves on quantum physics, represented in work of David Bohm and others, and regard quanta as 'messenger particles' (i.e. carriers of information, with the result that quantum teleportation based on quantum nonlocality is simply a matter of 'resetting a value'), all of the physical universe is based on underlying information ('bits' of nature's binary code) more basic than even vibration, so matter itself is (en)coded information in this 'program'. On this view, consciousness is understood as a symbiosis of mind and information. Mind (or soul) is, as a manifestation of the essence, non-physical, and mind emanates from the Spirit (the totality of manifestable essence). Mind is a 'driver', having an associated organic form (material body) as its 'vehicle', and this manifests through any level in pantheistic hierarchy/holarchy. On the other hand, the morphic field of the mind's past (a complex abstract/energetic form/object, consisting of all the thoughts (elemental abstract forms) of that mind through its physical lifetime) is the 'baggage' of an individual (on the synergetic level of an organism with brain, since using existing and generating new abstract forms is only possible with a brain). Morphic fields (a term introduced by Rupert Sheldrake) are the universal database of experience. Akashic Records, term used in Vedas are only a subset of this database.

Consciousness, as the interaction of Mind (essence, the 'driver') and Information (quantum energy and information from morphic fields/hyperplanes (scientist Dejan Rakovic interprets these fields actually as hyperplanes)) is what a complete living self is (driver + vehicle + baggage = consciousness). The modern gnostic "prophet" Philip K. Dick defined a person "in Gnosis" (homoplasmate) as a symbiosis of mind and information, considering heightened consciousness as achieved Gnosis (or insight), necessary for the self-realization and salvation from the Demiurge's hysterema (world of imperfection and suffering). Self-realization through Gnosis, if true, would mean that higher consciousness gets preserved after physical death somehow (and the 'vehicle' would be successfully transformed from matter into 'pure energy').

Is it possible to just ask that someone be permanently banned for destroying the possibility of making a good article by inserting garbage. Period. Is there such a rule in Misplaced Pages: meaningless writng violation number three or something? Hopeless!!--Lacatosias 10:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. With no insult intended, I have to wonder if Andrew is suffering from significant mental illness. In any case, it's not my job to diagnose, just prescribe.

Here's my prescription. Among Misplaced Pages's many failings, it has no way to recognize that a particular user is unqualified to modify the content of articles on certain topics. Instead, this is handled indirectly.

1. Andrew's changes are not cited and are not in line with the consensus on this article. They are, by both subjective and objective measures, of low quality and unacceptable. For this reason, we have the right to ask him to improve his text and have the right to revert it at any point, so long as we are consistent with 3RR. Ideally, he'll accept your suggestions and make stuff better.
2. If Andrew does not improve the text, we will likely wind up being forced to revert it. As there are more people against his text than for it, this will give him the choice between accepting consensus or getting blocked for 3RR. Once again, I hope he does the reasonable thing.
3. If all else fails, we should be very clear in explaining to him before, during and after, exactly how unacceptable violating the 3RR limit is and warn him that he could be blocked. This will give him a chance to understand what he's doing before he does it, which is the only way we could fairly hold him responsible for his actions. He's a newbie, so maybe he'll learn. If he is in clear violation and shows no willingness to stop, we report him.

In short, what I'm recommending is not a plan for railroading the guy, but rather a way to give him multiple chances to learn and repent. Whether this ends well for him or not, at least these articles will wind up in an acceptable state. Alienus 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, he elimiated my paragraph pointing out that the majority view of scientists is againts such crap. I'm geong to revert everything back to about three days ago. It's time to forget the carrot and go with the stick.--Lacatosias 13:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I reviewed his changes again. I wound up staring at the screen, dumbfounded and totally at a loss as to how to improve this stuff without simply reverting it wholesale. In the end, I did revert. Alienus 14:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

S-protect on abortion

I agree that it's not vandalism. But this is a weakness of the S-protect tag, not of the S-protection itself. If you want to subst out the tag and edit the message, feel free. I may do so myself to more clearly state why the page is protected. I'm not endorsing either position. I honestly don't have a strong opinion of which version is better, not having read the versions. I'm involved mostly because of Pro-Lick's continued block evasion and sock-puppet abuse. Stopping this is the reason for the S-protection. The S-protection does not stop you or other established editors from editing the page. Though I will say this. I'm very close to putting full protection on the page if the stale revert war continues. Blanket revers back and forth like this are not productive. A few days of the page protected might force all editors to the talk page to try to reach a compromise. I'm not to the point yet, but I am watching the page closely, and if the stale reverts continue, protection may not be far behind. - TexasAndroid 15:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really happy with Pro-Lick's ban evasion, but I'm also annoyed with the response to him. His methods are unacceptable, but he's actually been making largely positive changes to an article that is otherwise deadlocked. In some ways, his unreasonable attitude has compensated for the for the unreasonable attitude of pro-life edititors, restoring parity. Still, I've tried talking to him to persuade him to tone down his methods because it's really not doing him any good in the long term. This is not showing much promise.

Anyhow, I'm not sure that S-protect is the right tool to stop ban evasion by one person, as it has the effect of stopping edits by potentially many others. We'll never know how many would-be first-time users got bitten. Also, Pro-lick has edited a variety of simiarly-themed articles, and I don't think you'll be S-protecting them all. As for a straight-up Protect, we're at the point where the first sentence hasn't been stable in some time now and there is no forward motion in Talk, so perhaps this might be justified.

Commentary aside, I'm going to modify the text so that it specified ban-evasion, not vandalism. Hope this nonsense blows over. Alienus 15:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

COCP & iron

Given that COCPs tend to reduce the heaviness of periods, seems odd that in USA add iron to their tablets, oh well, funny USA :-). However your phrasing of The pills may contain an iron supplement, as iron consumption increases during menstruation seems wrong - surely its iron elimination/loss that increases during menstruation, its rate of consumption (i.e. that eaten is unchanged). Without additional iron supplimntation (as provided by certain USA pills), iron consumption would be unaltered (i.e. the iron in the diet is unchanged and rates of digestive extraction from the food eaten is surely unchanged) ? Perhaps a rewording that iron requirements increase during menstruation due to the loss of blood ? David Ruben 19:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonable clarification for the oral contraception article. Let me see if I can do something here. Alienus 22:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hey. I felt for you on this edit, buddy. Had I seen such a massive edit to such a controversial article without an edit summary there is a good chance I would have reverted to. However, having read over it, it seems like his changes were OK. I have made this mistake in the past and probably will make it again, but a good rule of thumb I have found, is that if such a change is made by a registered user, its a good idea to drop them a note on their talk page before reverting it. Someone will probably revert it anyway, in the interim, but at least you will have given them fair warning and avoid possibly insulting them by reverting something that may have taken them well over an hour (as this user claims when readding his changes) with only a cursory read. Hope this helps, and keep up the RC patrolling. savidan 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the change I reverted was full of subtle and not-so-subtle POV, so I stand by my actions. It was by a registered user. However, it was by one I knew to be biased. Alienus 22:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, you know nothing about me. I didn't know you existed until tonight, when you reverted my edits. Judging my work not by its content but rather by my religion is a fallacious and offensive. You have not even pointed to a single edit of mine that you consider POV. I have written a summary at Talk:Pro-life#Proposed overhaul and Talk:Pro-choice#Proposed overhaul detailing all the changes I'd like to make. I am trying to be fair about this and I hope you can be also. --Hyphen5 02:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, people who go out of their way to share their orthodox or conservative religious affilitions are rarely capable of unbiased editing on topics that involve the culture war. There may well be exceptions to this general rule, but you are clearly not one of them. Alienus 17:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus the uncivil pot calls the kettle black

Given you recent highly uncivil comment on the pro-life talk page ("The question is not whether you will lose this battle, but how soon and with how much bloodshed. If you back away now, maybe you won't get banned again. Otherwise, this could get ugly"), I am not concerned in the least. In fact, it was your incivility that freed me up to state quite plainly that your nickers are in fact in a a twist. Good 23:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the reason I pointed out WP:CIVIL is precisely because it does not allow you to respond to alleged incivility with incivility of your own. When you get banned, any attempt to say that I started it first will be summarily ignored as irrelevant. In short, I was trying to do you a favor by giving you sound advice, and you took it wrong, as usual. Alienus 23:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You see!!

Ndru's at it again. You see: this is what I meant when I asked the question what can be done now to get this fellow to stop. He's not giving up come hell or highwater. HE'S INSANE!! Period. He doen't actually revert, so you can't get him on 3RR. Is it posible to open a case for edit warring or some such vague violation. --Lacatosias 08:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm in an odd position, because I think WP:3RR is a very poorly designed rule, and I've seen it abused. In fact, I've had it abused against me. Having said this, it's our primary tool against edit warriors, and that's exactly what Andrew is.

I am not a big fan of entrapment, so I don't want to trick him into exceeding 3RR. If anything, I've bent over backwards to explain about 3RR and encourage him to follow it. At this point, if he doesn't then it's his own fault.

In the end, it comes down to each of us reverting his changes no more than 3 times a day, which will force him to either stop edit-warring or violate 3RR himself. Either way, consciousness is better off for it.

Oh, and as for reverting, a partial revert qualifies. This means that if he overwrites your revert with text that's based on what you reverted from but is slightly different, it's still a revert on his part.

I recommend that you read up on this stupid rule so that we can use it against this edit-warrior. I wish we had better tools at our disposal, but this is one place where Misplaced Pages particularly sucks. Alienus 08:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah hah, I actually read through it and see your point. This is an easily abused too. On the other hand, it seems to be the only tool available for extreme monomanical cases like Andrew. From now on, I will count all his cut and pastes of the same basic text and report him if they pass three in 24 hours. If there is consensus that infognosticim and technoconglomerationism (or whatever the heck it is) consitutes OR (which I think there is), then this kind of stuff has to cease. --Lacatosias 07:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've already reported him here. We'll see if the admins do their job this time. It's iffy. Sometimes they don't enforce the rule, or they punish the innocent along with the guilty. It's rather arbitrary, and there's no court of appeals. Alienus 08:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In regard to Post-abortion syndrome

Please stop adding nonsense to Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Hyphen5 14:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Quackery relates to purported health benefits but pseudoscience does seem to fit as it is phrased as a scientific debate without the science to back it up. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTCF 15:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A genuine content dispute is not vandalism, so Hyphen's overall charges are not merely false, but dishonest. As for whether quackery and pseudoscience fit, let's take them one at a time. I agree with Sophia and with Pro about PAS being pseudoscience, as it has no scientific basis or merit. It's essentially a political claim that's treated as if it were medically sound. As for quackery, I understand that Sophia sees the word in terms of purported health benefits, but it's also a bit broader than that. Quacks are masters of fake problems, not just fake solutions. In fact, the definition of quack is "a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill", and anyone claiming PAS to be true is engaging in this.

Hyphen, for these reasons, I'll be reverting your attempt to whitewash this article. Let's not pretend for a moment that your support for PAS is in any way independent of your support for the pro-life stance. Essentially, PAS is the pseudo-medical excuse to attack reproductive rights, claiming that any regrets a woman might have about having gotten pregnant and needing an abortion somehow constitute a psychiatric illness. In a word, it's bullshit, but we don't have a category for that, so we'll have to use these other two. Any bad-faith attempts to censor these facts will be treated harshly. Alienus 20:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Hyphen5 21:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen, if you threaten me again on a false basis, I will start deleting your comments from my page. We both know that removing your bias is not vandalism. Now go away and don't come back until you can be honest. Bye. Alienus 21:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Hyphen5 10:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if adding the "Category:Quackery" and "Category:Pseudoscience" tags is "removing bias", then yeah. But it's not; it's adding bias, and it's vandalism. If you add them again, I will be requesting that you be temporarily blocked. That is the procedure on Misplaced Pages; I'm informing you, not threatening you. --Hyphen5 10:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me give you a hint. To establish that this is indeed "vandalism", you're going to have to do more than show that I added two categories. In specific, you're going to have to show that it goes against the consensus about what constitutes NPOV for the article. As it stands, SOPHIA and I agree about one of the two categories, and the second is not a closed matter yet, either. This means that a consensus supports the "pseudoscience" category. Alienus 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiCats and I agree that both categories are inappropriate and suggest a POV. In order to achieve a consensus, you need a supermajority. You do not have that. --Hyphen5 22:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It would take more than that to call a good-faith edit vandalism. That word is narrowly interpreted here, and neither side of a content dispute is ever vandalism, lack of consensus or not. This is a content dispute, ergo, Alienus' edits are not vandalism, and neither are the edits in the other direction. "Vandalism" only applies to deliberate attempts to compromise Misplaced Pages, not to misguided or POV edits. -GTBacchus 22:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As GT points out, disagreement is not sufficient to constitute vandalism. As for consensus, I don't see the two of you as constituting independent votes. You're all one vote, and it's the Pope's. When the pontiff comes here and offers some justification for his statements, I'll listen. Until them, I will politely disregard your religiously-motivated opposition as irrelevant to all factual matters. Alienus 01:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ndru has three reverts

Nrdru has reverted three times since 22:02. However, I also have three reverts in about two hours. If he reverts my last revert that will be four, where do I report this violation?--Lacatosias 09:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Don't leave me out on the linb here.--Lacatosias 09:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I recently reported him on this page but no admin has seen fit to act on it as of yet. Let's wait on the status of this one, as any further action may become unnecessary. Alienus 17:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Behe

I disagree with SirGalahad and also, and am annoyed at his POV pushing. Still, we should try to remain civil. JoshuaZ 12:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe I was being civil, but I can see how it might be reasonable to request that I be more civil. I'll do my best. Alienus 17:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Objectivism

The project is now active at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Objectivism. I have added the user names of all those who expressed interest to the list of participants on the WikiProject page. I hope this is ok. --Matthew Humphreys 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. Currently, one of the members of this project is doing an excellent cleanup of Ayn Rand, so perhaps we could focus there first. Alienus 18:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to say thanks for the kind feedback here and on my talk page. Regards, Kaisershatner 20:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just the facts. Alienus 01:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Censorship?

Alienus, I will not cease to edit the wikipedia pages you have called vandalism and listed as censorship. Statements will be added or (re)moved to reflect accuracy and those subsequent changes will be placed in linking articles. From now on, the talk pages will be used to discuss any changes to be made prior to any editing. unixgold 01:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing material without explanation is a form of vandalism. Keep in mind that, even if you give an explanation, there is no guarantee that it will be accepted. In other words, other edits may well revert such removals if they feel that the material belongs. You need to actually get a consensus in advance so as to avoid such reversions. Alienus 01:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I will agree to using the talk page to discuss changes and will provide sufficient argument to gain that consensus for a needed change. unixgold 01:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?

So are you willing to enter mediation? I'm not bothered about which form of dispute resolution is used, so long as it works. Jakew 10:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never refused mediation. Having said that, I don't think there's anything to mediate about, so long as the focus is on behavior and not content. I think it would be interesting to see what mediation brings with regard to the CA-MRSA text, for example. Alienus 13:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you think there's nothing to mediate about, an RFC is probably the best way forward, then. As for the MRSA text, the dispute involves more parties than just you and I, and those editors would also have to agree to take part in mediation for it to be worthwhile. I'd be happy to do so if others are. Jakew 14:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. Alienus 15:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have done so. You think that there is nothing to mediate about your behaviour, suggesting that you feel that is a non-issue. However, you feel that it may be worthwhile regarding content. Am I correct? Jakew 15:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that, fundamentally, this is a dispute about content. The behavior of the people disputing it is, at most, secondary. If we didn't have this content to fight over, we wouldn't even be talking and none of us would have anything to complain about. I don't care one way or the other about your RFC because it's pointless.

Now, if you look at Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision, you'll see that there's support brewing for an RFM. Let's round up everyone who cares one way or the other about the CA-MRSA issue and have it mediated. This is, as I said, the obvious next step.

I agree that there is a dispute about content, but in my view that is a separate issue. I'd find it much easier to work with you on that particular dispute if you would be civil, assume good faith, and refrain from making personal attacks. I'm sure others would agree. For goodness sake, you're even alienating (no pun intended) those who agree with you on the content! This is really not productive. Jakew 20:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't anticipate us interacting in a productive manner, which is why I support the use of mediation to settle an issue that we will not settle amongst ourselves through a consensus. Alienus 16:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

Please stop trolling on my talk page William M. Connolley 11:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make requests that are logically impossible to fulfill. I can't stop doing what I never started. For that matter, mischaracterizing my actions violates WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I am one of a number of people with genuinely good reason to doubt your competance as an admin. Your actions here are only strengthening those doubts. Alienus 16:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Trilemma

Could you please tell me why you deleted my addition to Trilemma and what kind of standard you are using. I am planning on revising what I have said to conform to the standard so it doesn't get deleted.User:haow 3:01, 8 April 2006

My edit comment says it all "rm OR essay". I removed the insertion of your essay because it constituted original research. Nothing was attributed by citations to reliable sources. In addition, there were some language problems and apparent overlap with other article content. Finally, you left no edit comment or any other hint of why your text was inserted. I suggest that you go to the Talk page and discuss your ideas there before making further changes to the article. Alienus 01:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

RFM

Template:RFM-Filed

Alienus 02:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoth Alienus

"Hiding accusations by reverting this page; not an honest thing to do" Nandesuka 17:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was your buddy, William, who showed me how to erase nonsense from a Talk page. The problem is that he erased stuff that wasn't nonsense, as well. Since then, the only time I've removed stuff from my page is when you post it. You're special and I've made an exception just for you. Alienus 18:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury. Nandesuka 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't brag about how much your life is full of luxuries. Alienus 21:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No where else this can go

When addressing someone else I'd be most obliged if you didn't post it on my talk page. Thanks, Chooserr 18:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I generally don't, but it was appropriate this time, since the subject was the post itself. Alienus 18:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

re:abortion

Thank you for your support. I am similarly feeling frustrated because the very few people who oppose my proposal do not seem willing to work on improving the current version. I have to defend every single word, yet they do not suggest any changes of their own (well except patsw, who suggested defining abortion as a fetus dying). I noticed you working for a change in the first sentence about a month ago, and there was vocal support for that version, then the next day a couple more editors showed up and shot it down. So I think we can relate to each other here. I feel like we are almost there on a version that everyone can live with, but the amount of time going into just a few words in an article with many other areas in need of improvement is starting to feel insignificant. I wish that all the time and space and editors putting into the talk page on this issue could be redirected towards kyd's progress reports. It's like there are 20 people who watch the article just to make sure it never ever changes, yet they do nothing to improve it, just block any efforts to do otherwise (then there are the handful of people on both sides who only edit the article to attempt to slip in their POV where ever possible). But seriously, why so many editors, yet no progress? Anyway, sorry for the rant, and thanks for working towards my proposed paragraph.--Andrew c 05:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The rant is understandable and I can't disagree with its content. Your reaction is likewise expected, as I've been through the same sort of thing. This is hardly the first time I've gotten frustrated with abortion and taken an article-specific wikibreak.

Frankly, I can't account for their behavior without either disposing of the assumption of good faith or, alternately, the assumption of good sense. In other words, either it's intentional or they're incompetent, and neither option leads to much of anything good.

I think that articles such as this one test (and generally break) the limits of the sort of self-policing that Misplaced Pages is capable of, so they become hotbeds of POV-pushing and general zealotry. There have been excesses on all sides (including, oddly enough, extreme centrism), but the current problem is largely the fault of the pro-lifers.

As far as I can tell, they think that your neutral intro is a step away from the previous level of pro-life bias, so they oppose it on whatever terms they can come up with after the fact. For them, this is political, not truth-seeking, so there is no way to get through to them.

Anyhow, that's my mini-rant. I'll shut up and just wish you luck. Alienus 12:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Cabal?

Cabal? Four of us? Other than G&E, I don't even know who you're referring to (I only know G&E b/c you left that message under his). If someone wants to leave a message on my page, that's fine - it doesn't mean I don't use my own judgement to make a decision. In case you hadn't noticed, G&E and I had very differing views towards the opening paragraph a few days ago (I haven't been around for a few days) - I would read over discussion histories and the like before you make such a hasty judgement. I don't mind people questioning my POV, but I certainly don't like being accused of some sort of editing conspiracy, especially as it has no basis in fact. DonaNobisPacem 05:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

G&E sent messages to a selected group of pro-lifers, encouraging them to stack the vote against Andrew's carefully-crafted and entirely neutral version of the introduction. In this way, he tried to create a cabal. If this bothers you, take it out on him, not me. Alienus 12:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Egad! I invited editors who have shown common sense and fairness to visit the poll - I should be banned for life, I know. It was so over the top. You, on the other hand, were hoping that your subrosa efforts could be slipped in unnoticed by RoyBoy during a page freeze. Fugeddaboudit. ____G_o_o_d____ 07:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You dragged in known supporters. Please don't attempt to whitewash your actions or spin paranoid webs. Alienus 21:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User warning templates

Thank you for fixing the categories on my templates. Cheers! Isopropyl 21:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just glad to do my bit. Alienus 21:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the nice words and the careful watch you keep over the article. Your time is appreciated. I'm kind of a newbie, so if there is anything I do wrong or could do better, please let me know. Best, Wilanthule 21:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your newbiness (is that a word?) is to your advantage. Over time, participants tend to get burnt out and polarized. They either edit only to push their POV or only to defend the article against POV, leaving many areas with weak language, broken links and other objective defects untouched. In short, my only advice is to keep on doing what you're doing and try not to get too burnt out. Welcome aboard. Alienus 21:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I...

wasting my time? I'm in a slow revert war with Good over at PBA over the term "non-medical" in the first sentence. Nowhere in the first paragraph does it state that it's a non medical term and the "primarily used in political...." implies the term is used outside the political arena which we both know it's not. You seem a veteran of these interactions (!) - are they more determined than I can be bothered to be? Just how determined do you have to be to get things factual? Why do we do this for fun???? Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTCF 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

One does not open an article or definition by explaining or describing what something is not. You mistakenly assume an automatic response in the reader to think the term PBA is a "medical term" (a term that has an elusive meaning, itself). The opening line will NOT discuss what the term PBA is not. Try some other way. But the lead sentence is the wrong place to relay that information to the reader. It's pretty much Basic Editing 101. ____G_o_o_d____ 07:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen your revert - thanks! Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTCF 20:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To deal with these people, you have to be committed, in the sense of being institutionalized for insanity. It's a frustrating and ultimately pointless endeavor. They are either stupid or dishonest or both, and no amount of sense gets through to them. They substitute strength of conviction for rational support, thereby editing in bad faith. I wish I could give you a more pleasant view, but sometimes civility and assuming good faith are nonsense that gets in the way of the truth. Alienus 21:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you should be quite familiar with being blocked for violating 3RR. Ahh, such wisdom from the Alienus. The civility and wisdom (exemplified by your words just above:"They are either stupid or dishonest or both") ooze from your fingertips onto our computer monitors. ____G_o_o_d____ 07:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my frustration landed this on you Alienus. As for not describing "what something is not" in the opening line - bit too convolved for me. "Non-medical" is what it is ! However I think the compromise posted by Good is good(!) and should hopefully be stable. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTCF 09:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voicing your view and considering my proposal.____G_o_o_d____ 09:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Sophia, I can handle the heat. Any definition that doesn't let you know what the term excludes has failed to define what it includes. Alienus 21:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mysar1959

This page was created in error I am guessing, as the user you intended it for already has a page. I've listed it for speedy delete. Green Giant 03:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Alienus 03:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Abortion poll

After recruiting the pro-life cabal, G&E asked myself, KillerChihuahua, and Tznkai, either in an honest attempt to get more input or a calculated afterthought intended to make the first move look less biased. I really don't know. WP:AGF? I do know that these hostile politics are the precise reason that progress on the actual article has ground to a halt. In this regard, perhaps G&E wasn't being helpful, but, on the other hand, so aren't other users. From an objective position, POV-editing does a disservice to Misplaced Pages, no manner if it advances from the right or the left front. -Severa | !!! 16:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is all true. Having said that, I'm not sure if he was acting in good, bad or indifferent faith, and at this point, it doesn't much matter. I don't consider this vote valid, because the appearance of fraud has caused multiple users to refuse to participate, and because there appear to be a few die-hards who will oppose the consensus forever unless they get their way. In this regard, the worst offender is Musical Linguist. Alienus 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it can't be valid - since it did not go how you wanted it to go. ____G_o_o_d____ 20:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not valid because improprieties kept legitimate editors from participating. Please assume good faith and remain civil. Thank you. Alienus 21:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

pro-life

You are invited to help remove POV phrasing from the article. Alienus is pushing. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to join in an edit war, but it just so happens that Alienus is not pushing any POV on that article. Rather, he keeps removing some nonfactual, POV contributions by some Evil dude. Alienus 05:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, there is still time for you to make a good faith effort to remove your POV edits. ____G_o_o_d____ 07:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that, despite the similarity in name, NPOV edits are not actually a type of POV edit. Rather, they constitute the opposite, neutralizing any POV inserted by crazed zealots. The worst zealots, of course, are the ones who realize they can't win an edit war on their own and respond to this by running around and trying to recruit other, equally crazed zealots to their cause. This act of bad faith is the antithesis of what we should all be doing here: seeking consensus and sticking to the facts. Alienus 07:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edits make it clear that you have no sense of neutrality. However, neutrality will win the day. ____G_o_o_d____

Really? And how many people are you going to recruit to aid in your edit war? Alienus 10:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing out POV is not edit warring. Inviting people with common sense to help overcome the POV insertions of a persistant editor is simply one way to ensure a good article exists. ____G_o_o_d____ 14:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe we've clearly established by your history that what you call editing out POV is actually the insertion of POV. That's why you're routinely reverted. Alienus 14:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienuspleasestopactinglikeawitch'sbrewpotcallingthekettleblack ____G_o_o_d____ 14:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm 'proud' of the blocks I've received while protecting Misplaced Pages against zealots, even the ones I received unfairly. In contrast, you have some bans earned by your repeated attempts to act like a zealot. Of course, WP:3RR is blind to this distinction, but I'm not. Alienus 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I know your mantra: "I am special. The rules were not meant for people like me. Do as I say, not as I do." ____G_o_o_d____ 20:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in responding to uncivil remarks from you, so I suggest you drop this and go away. Alienus 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

amateur pov neutralizer?

Please change "Amateur POV neutralizer" to something more actually resembling me at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Dabljuh#Outside_view_by_Alienus. Dabljuh 14:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, do you find the term offensive? My point is that you're just a regular guy who's trying to neutralize POV, not a member of a group of people who make it their business to inject POV. Alienus 14:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A regular guy? A REGULAR GUY! I am an extraordinary guy. Please cut me some slack: Your text sounds a bit pityful towards me. While I appreciate you recognize the amount of hurt I went through taking those hateful fuckers on, you could realize that I actually won, against all odds, and got the girl, and there is no reason to pity me. Dabljuh 14:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I answered this on the RFC page, but it may have gotten deleted, so please check the history. Alienus 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

NOR

Hi, I read your question on NOR. I will answer you here because I am staying away for awhile to let others argue this case on their own grounds.

Your Question: "I agree that the current policy is somewhat problematic, or at least difficult to interpret for certain cases. I can understand that some editors might try to string together sources in an attempt to tell a story that is not implicit within them. This would be OR."

• My position exactly. Original Research is gathering primary sources and trying to prove a point from those primary sources. Gathering together secondary sources on the other hand is not. Original Research means literally doing your own research towards a conclusion that is not held by other published sources. At least as how I understand the original concept.

Your Question: "On the other hand, sometimes one source makes a statement about a group of cases and we need to consult another source just to establish what constitutes that group. This isn't all that clear, so let me give you a realistic scenario. Imagine that we run into a source that links the risk of contracting a particular infectious disease with a particular surgical procedure. However, the source is an advocacy site against this procedure, so we're not sure how reliable and unbiased its medical claims are. We'd like to see if this claim is credible, so we hunt down a reliable source that confirms that this disease is a risk for all procedures that cut or otherwise break the skin. Between the advocacy site bringing up the connection and the medical site confirming it, we have enough here to allow us to mention the connection, carefully citing the sources and stating exactly how much support there is for it. Note that there is no intent by the editors to conjure up a story from scratch. Rather, one source provides the idea, another confirms its credibility, together adding up to a reliable source in support of the statement."

• Again a correct conclusion and statement. This is not original research. In a nutshell, original research is gathering primary sources of whatever purpose and arguing a point from them without further backup from a reliable secondary source to indicate this conclusion is correct. New concept or ideas are also considered OR, when they are introduced to Misplaced Pages. There must be verifiable sources of a secondary nature to indicate the primary source material.

Your Question: "Despite this, some literalistic interpretations of WP:NOR would say that this is forbidden."

• My point exactly. My whole case and the reason why I edited Slimvirgins re-wording of a good portion of two sections of NOR (without discussion on the talk page or gathering a consensus that this is best) was to bring a sense of balance to it by adding Consensus. I do not argue that this is necessarily the best option or that my edit was the best option. I was trying to force discussion because if you read the talk page, that editor and those around her refuse to engage in proper answers to questions and sometimes engage in very improper responses that verge on personal attacks if not insults - holding to a very elitist view of editing based on numbers. For example, I have just begun to edit. I am not entirely familiar with all aspects of Misplaced Pages, that is true, but I have become familiar with the three Cardinal rules and some Arbcom cases in the past because of what the before mentioned editor and few others who engage in similar behavior towards others they suspect might be of a certain political disposition have done to me since arriving here to edit. That said, I have had literally years of experience with Misplaced Pages as a reader of it. Someone might make few edits but be very familiar with policy. Edits alone don't count for credibility anymore than ones political affiliation (whether the association is true is another story that is too long to go into). Anyway, if you read my talk page and the discussion I and Lumiere had about my edit and the discussion further down, you will something of a glimpse of how a civil talk should go. Question on reasons for edit, answers in a civil tone as to why - rebuttal and response until things are worked out or if they can't be, then as a last resort a straw poll or RFC etc. to ferret out Community opinion on this. Consensus is then reached one way or the other and the proper changes or no changes and back to the original version before April 10th can commence. I want to apologize for length; but I have been called a vandal - a Larouche supporter etc. without an ability to respond to such personal insults and my edits was debated only after I was blocked from editing (due to the revert stuff which was done to try to protect original page - but I should not have done it I know and I agreed that I would do no no further as it is pointless) and after I gave my word not to respond there for awhile. Best wishes, hope I answered some of your questions at least about the original policy, what exists there now is not the original on April 10th, but a much altered version that would nullify much of wikipedia articles or cause endless debates over Slimvirgins definition of Synthesis. I have tried to work with this editor on numerous occasions and from the beginning I have only gotten hostility contrary to AGF civility. Again, best wishes. --Northmeister 19:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the reasoning behind the WP:NOR rule and the cases it handles well and poorly. Where it succeeds best is in scenarios where the text added to the article is either made up from whole (uncited) cloth, or constitutes a genuine and risky analytical project in itself that should be published elsewhere and used as a reliable source.

So, for example, adding to an article on quantum mechanics (QM) based on what my personal interpretations of what it all means would be OR. Likewise, writing an article combining ideas from various lay books on pop-QM into a my personal religion is also very OR (and a real case!). Citing (or even quoting from) a relevant, reliable (meaning peer-reviewed) scientific study to support an existing point is not OR; it's just a fulfillment of the WP:RS policy. However, performing a meta-analysis of the leading studies to draw a weighted conclusion is OR, because it's trying to add original value (or spin), and this entails a risk of distortion or error that makes my contribution unreliable.

In short, so long as we are humble researchers faithful to our reliable sources, we cannot be guilty of OR, even if we have to dig around a bit and use multiple related sources in an obvious and risk-free manner in order to provide supporting citations. If the text reads "canine pregnancies can be aborted", it is in no way original research to cite a reliable source stating that "all mammalian pregnancies can be aborted" and another to confirm that "dogs are mammals". The connection is obvious, unoriginal and uncontroversial. We would not expect the author of that first study to explicitly point out that dogs fall into the category of mammals, because it's common knowledge among biologists and therefore not worth mentioning. Therefore, we would not penalize the editor for explicating the obvious.

The problem is that it does not seem as if the rule clearly distinguishes between merely looking up relevant sources and using them to craft something novel (and fallible). A good test is to ask whether the writers of these source documents would consider the editor's statements anything but obvious. If they would be surprised or skeptical, then the editor is making a novel connection, which is a type of OR. Otherwise, the editor is just spelling out what is already there implicitly, for the benefit of those who have not done as much research in this particular field.

I would like to see the policy tackle this issue clearly and make a distinction that provides us with a principled basis for concluding whether something is OR or not. As it stands, the rule is subject to abuse, to the point where few articles are safe from such a tactic. Combined with parallel abuses to WP:RS, this has shown itself to be a powerful way to spin POV into articles while silencing all opposition, and that's not what Misplaced Pages should be aiming for.

I am not suggesting a change in the WP:OR policy, just a clarification to avoid this sort of abuse. Unfortunately, the last attempt at clarification seems to have opened the door wider for abuse instead of shutting it down. Alienus 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well put! I agree with you tremendously. That has been my point all along. That is what should commence, maybe you should propose this to the community there. I can't join at the moment in that discussion, but I support your effort. --Northmeister 22:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll likely wind up posting some version of the above text on the page where I first asked the question, but I'd like to wait and give them a chance to reply to the question. Alienus 23:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: huh

The material that I removed on IRmep was not only from an extremely dubious and non-reputable source- IRmep. The material on CNI, although from a non-reputable source- National Vanguard, was consistent with all the other information about Paul Findley, and in this case National Vanguard would actually be acceptable since the info was taken from an interview that Findley gave to National Vanguard.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason to believe that this organization's web site is lying about such basic facts as how long it's been a non-profit? It's one thing to disagree with their political agenda, another to claim they're "dubious" sources even for information about themselves. If anything the rules for reliable sources seem to say that we can cite an otherwise unreliable organization on the topic of what that organization says. Alienus 23:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of the info describing the website's activites appear somwhat grandiose, and they have shown that they are unreliable on similar matters. Also I would appreciate it if you wouldn't label your edits as minor reversion of vandalism when it clearly isn't, you can get into trouble for that.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have evidence of unreliability, add it to the article as counterpoint. It is still correct to report what they say about themselves, even if we have to qualify it as "this is what they say, and here's what another source says". Finally, restoring text deleted without a suitable explanation is minor. I fix vandalism like this all the time, and you could get into trouble for engaging in it. Alienus 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you have kinda misunderstood the concept of vandalism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing content because you dislike the speaker is a canonical example of vandalism. This isn't a content dispute, it's your attempt to remove content that's properly cited and entirely relevant. It is unacceptable behavior on your part. Alienus 04:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Link

Wondered if this website might be of interest to you SimplePilgrim 23:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: this page has been deleted to remove personal information. The post above, from SimplePilgrim, has been edited by me, prior to restoration of the page. AnnH ♫ 08:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. As it happens, I've encountered it already, although I don't know anything about its origins. I do have to admit that the contents are largely correct, though. Alienus 23:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to second that opinion. HK30 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. What's most unfortunate is that this little cabal is not the only successful one operating, nor are they independent. Consider the case of Jayjg, an admin who goes out of his way to support Jakew's endless pro-circumcision crusade, helping him take over multiple related articles and silence the opposition. They got Robert Blair thrown off these articles for a year!

When Jay had his buddy admin, William M. Connelly, ban me on a fake 3RR, who other than Musical Linguist (Ann) chimed in to support the ban? And now that Jay's trying to screw me over big-time with an RFC (like the one that took down Blair), Ann has once again jumped in to help. Two cabals, but mutually supportive. Clearly, the biased and incompetent admins have to stand up for each other.

Both Ann and William have a habit of simply deleting any criticism from their talk pages, including warning about WP:CIVIL, WP:RS and so on. This sort of behavior is generally rude for a regular user, but entirely unacceptable for an admin. In return for their additional power, they have an additional requirement to be answerable to the rest of the community. Burying dissent is an admission of guilt. Alienus 00:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus admits guilt, news at 11: . Cheers! Nandesuka 14:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, and the moment I become an admin, your argument will have some merit. I reserve the right to remove bad faith accusations by you. Alienus 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

See, I say without malice and in the best faith that your perspective that somehow the standards of behavior here are different for admins and editors is part of the problem. That is basically a post-facto excuse to explain why you bless behavior in yourself that you curse in others. But that's not an atypical behavior for anyone. Most people can't analyze their own behavior objectively (myself included, of course.) One difference between me and you seems to be that when an uninvolved third party tells you you might be in the wrong, your reaction is to leap to the conclusion that they are part of "the cabal," whatever that is, and that they are "corrupt," whatever that means. While I'm sure I have lots of problems, that particular pathology is not one of them. You might want to reconsider that behavior, because it will continue to hinder your ability to get things done as long as you engage in it. Nandesuka 18:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

To remind you, the only person whose comments I remove from this page are yours, because I know they're in bad faith. Think about that when you consider how much weight I give to your suggestions. Alienus 18:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

KHM03's talk page was reverted as it gives links to his website/photo/family details etc - I personaly don't think it's correct for anyone other than the user themselves to do that. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTCF 00:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No reason was given for the reversion. Alienus 00:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't having a pop at you - just bringing you up to date. I don't think the admin wanted to draw attention to it. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTCF 00:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't take it personally. Rather, I was explaining why I didn't hestitate to revert an unexplained deletion. As for the web site, there are two issues. The first is the largely accurate picture it paints of the Christian cabal. The second is the excess of real names and real photos. It would be nice if the latter were missing, but the genie is out of the proverbial bottle. And, frankly, if whoever put the site up was able to get this information, I suspect it wasn't well-guarded to begin with, not that this is any sort of excuse. We'll see what comes of it. Already, both of the people talking about the site are being targeted with bans, however fairly or not. After the Steadman issue, I'm not sure I trust certain biased admins when they claim sockpuppetry. Alienus 04:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As the one who flagged all this I think the bans are good. The users concerned made virtually no edits to article pages and seemed primarily concerned with details of other editors lives - not healthy in my opinion. As for the cabal stuff - I've seen them at each other's throats when there is some doctrinal issue at stake but they all have a huge common interest so they are bound to club together. Having said that changes have been made to the Christianity and Jesus pages to balance POV without overblowing the numbers of the minority position so I think with enough determination and references you can get there. As for the personal stuff I suspect HK30 put a lot of effort into google searches to come up with that website - however I consider he crossed a line by linking it everywhere he could think of on Good Friday when they would all be very busy elsewhere. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTCF 06:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I deleted your page in order to remove personal information. See here for more information. Since the page had been edited after the information was added, but before I deleted it, I had to delete a few inoffensive posts as well. I am now restoring them, but the diffs will have been lost, and it will look as if I added all of this section.

I would like to point out that it was a very bad idea for you to revert the deletion of that post on another user's talk page. I am sure you are aware that administrators and other users often revert examples of spam. And if, as you say, you had already encountered that link, you must have known that it was an attack on other Wikipedians. Whether you think the attack was justified or not is irrelevant. People have been banned indefinitely from Misplaced Pages for attacking other users and posting personal information. If in doubt, assume that the administrator who is deleting posts knows what he's doing, or, if necessary, post a question to his talk page. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 08:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

When text is deleted without explanation, and by someone I've never heard of, I don't need any further justification for reverting that delete. If it had been deleted with a comment that made it clear that an admin was cleaning up a violation, then maybe you'd have a point, instead of just a grudge. Alienus 17:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

User:SimplePilgrim deserves no sympathy. This is a single issue editor who has no interest in building an encyclopedia. I've been used as a "case history" by him which thankfully has disappeared - even if he/she had a point the way they go about things immediately loses any credibility in my eyes. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTCF 21:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am nothing if not unsympathetic. However, I don't reserve my lack of sympathy for SimplePilgrim; I have lots left over for incompetent and biased admins, including Musical Linguist. Alienus 23:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Mystar1959

Try it without the space... he might get it. ℬastique▼♥♑ 02:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean with the word "User:" B 02:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it. Alienus 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: no more red

User:SOPHIA suspects that someone is impersonating Robert Steadman. She has an e-mail from Rob to back it up. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTCF 11:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Alienus 19:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Template_talk:HealthDisclaimer

Please try to suggest another wording suitable for Abortion article. ackoz 20:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that we need any sort of disclaimer. It's not like women can get abortions without informed consent. Alienus

Talk:Christianity

Your continued personalization of the talk page has become irksome. You don't know me, yet have made several unfounded assumptions about my religious conviction, cabalhood, bias and the like.

Go through my edits and you will see that the majority of them are as you've seen here - rewording for style, removing redundant text and off-topic passages.

I am always happy to discuss these changes.Timothy Usher 04:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)