User talk:Moulton

Welcome!

Hello Moulton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  bd2412 T 04:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unreferenced or inadequately referenced controversial biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Rosalind Picard. Thank you. Hrafn42 18:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rosalind Picard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ornis (t) 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it true that 3RR does not apply to WP:BLP?

No. it applies to everything. ornis (t) 09:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have a US or Canadian phone number I will call you. Email it to me and let me know.--Filll 04:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton, please do not revert edits on the article. The rules (sorry I know you hate the rules) are that you cannot revert more than 3 times in 24 hours or your access will be blocked. You are well over that limit I am afraid. You can end up getting blocked for days, or even have your IP blocked. So just let things continue as we investigate. Do not get overanxious, or they will block/ban you.--Filll 13:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing or editing others comments

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at talk:Rosalind Picard. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ornis (t) 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism was the insertion into the page of a controversial issue which has no bearing on the subject of the page. The material had evidently been inserted because some previous editors erroneously believed and took at face value some recent propaganda published by a Seattle public relations firm that had no connection to the subject. The previous editors evidently adopted the unwarranted assumption that the propaganda amounted to a verified fact.

Moulton 06:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Request to Wikipedia Administrator

Joshua, would you be kind enough to nominate an ombudsman or mediator to resolve a perplexing conflict between myself and User:Hrafn42 regarding alleged violations of WP:BLP? I am concerned about the recurring publication of libelous falsehoods causing serious harm to scientists and academics with whom I am affiliated. Please feel free to E-Mail me if you need further information. Many thanks. Moulton 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman

I don't think I can help you out with that since having reviewed the issue, I completely agree with Hrafn42 and Guettarda and disagree with both your position and actions there. My advice is take some time to better learn how Wikipedia actually handles these issues then revisit the articles; I think you'll find then your concern is unwarranted. FeloniousMonk 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a higher authority than you that I can appeal to?

Is there some way we can talk over the phone so that I can explain to you (or anyone else you care to nominate) what I am concerned about and why? I am frustrated by my inability to get to the ground truth in this vexatiously crippling rule-bound system, as it only seems to be able to get to what most editors happen to believe, without providing any reliable functional process for getting past misconceptions into the ground truth. Science itself provides such a functional process known as the scientific method, but Wikipedia doesn't operate on that paradigm. Instead it operates on an anachronistic rule-based paradigm that wobbles to what the most dominant Wikipedia editors believe. When it comes to characterizing living persons, that paradigm is demonstrably fraught with errors that are nigh impossible to fix.

There are famous cases in history when the vast majority of people held laughable misconceptions. But science is an arduous process, and many dedicated scientists have suffered grievously for having the temerity to displace a popular misconception with a superior theory grounded in evidence and reasoning.

Getting people to honestly question their assumptions and conscientiously examine both their assumptions and the evidence for them is one of the recurring challenges in science education.

As a science educator, it pains me beyond words to observe how badly we have failed to inculcate a scientific mindset into the educable public.

Moulton 13:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For more information on how Wikipedia works, please refer to the highest authority on truthiness and wikiality:

“ You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge. ”

Hopefully this helps clarify the inner workings of Wikipedia. :) (Coincidentally and conversely, one could also apply such theories to the re-emergence of creationism, i.e. it doesn't need to be true for it to become fact as long as enough people insist it is.) Romperomperompe 08:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective and your levity. Please see Wikipedia and Ethics in Online Journalism for a more analytical version of the same sentiment. Moulton 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Please make yourself familiar with WP:POINT and avoid stunts like this again [1][2]. Odd nature 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So-called "anti-evolution" petition controversy redrafted

Having had a look at your concerns, I've added a section Talk:Rosalind Picard#Anti-evolution petition controversy redrafted. Feel free to comment. Please realise that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and can only reflect published information that can be verified from reliable sources. .. dave souza, talk 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your assistance, Dave. I'll go take a look at your suggestions now. Moulton 21:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Rosalind Picard, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Hrafn42 08:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not writing about a person there. I am writing about two competing practices. One is the practice, which I support, of adhering to the protocols of the scientific method. The other is the practice, which I abhor, of adopting the propagandist technique of negative reframing which is both dishonest and unethical. I am utterly appalled that you would engage in the insidious and pernicious practice of negative reframing, in gross and egregious violation of WP:NPOV. Moulton 09:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement which she put her name to was anti-evolution when she put her name to it, and it remains anti-evolution today. No reframing need be involved to reach that assessment. But regardless of that, you violated the WP:COI guidelines by making a controversial edit to the article on her, and none of your hair-splitting can change that fact. Hrafn42 09:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's your personal interpretation, your spin, which agrees with DI's intentional negative reframing of a statement regarding the appropriate application of the protocols of the scientific method. You are free to engage in the insidious, pernicious, and unethical practice of intentional negative reframing if it pleases you, but it would be unworthy of an ethical editor of Wikipedia to adopt that abhorrent propagandist practice. Since I would rather see you in a positive light than a negative one (and the same for Wikipedians in general), I urge you to abandon the contentious practice of negative reframing. Moulton 10:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rosalind Picard

If you want to change talk page headers in a situation where there's a continuing argument, it would be best in this particular case to discuss the proposal first and seek consensus to avoid any suggestion of disruptive editing. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dave: changing section headings seems to be a standard 'debating tactic' of Moulton's. He's already done it several times on both Talk:Rosalind Picard‎ and Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism‎. I think a n explicit warning is now warranted. Hrafn42 11:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My paragraph was moved out of the section to which I had inserted it and into a new section which unfairly reframed it under a different headline. So I 1) moved my paragraph back to the section it originally appeared in and 2) revised the heading of that section to establish a more neutral POV framing the controversy in that section.

I take exception to framing a discussion by highlighting one side in the headline. A headline should be a non-partisan NPOV framing the controversy, not framing one side of a controversy. The questionable practice of negative reframing is at the core of the controversy over how to frame the context and interpretation of a statement made within one scope and context and then ballyhooed years later in a substantially different scope and context. Moulton 11:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, fighting with people who could well be your allies doesn't help to get the changes you want. Note that disruptive editing can lead to a block, as will 3 reverts in edit warring, so both of you please stop and think before making too many edits. .. dave souza, talk 12:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I need all the allies I can get in support of the goal of crafting accurate and well-written articles that demonstrate exemplary professional standards of excellence in journalistic quality. And I appreciate the efforts of those who strive toward that goal, whether they view me as an ally, adversary, or meat-puppet. Moulton 04:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I learned last night that well over a year ago (June 29, 2006), Picard took the initiative to edit her own bio page to excise the false characterization of "anti-evolution" ...

21:35, June 29, 2006 18.85.10.17 ("anti-evol" is POV of the writer. the organizers of the petition support many aspects of evolution such as microevolution so to label it anti-evolution is an attempt to sell more newspapers)

12 hours ago, I passed that obscure bit of intelligence along to User:Filll in E-Mail, as evidence both to support the objection that the petition was not accurately characterized as anti-evolution, and to satisfy him that Picard was on record (albeit semi-anonymously) as taking exception to that particular detail.

See also this similar edit from six months ago (which I also told User:Filll about) ...

22:19, February 4, 2007 18.85.10.10 (the deleted material has nothing to do with the person in the entry)

It's illuminating to see what another editor has now done with that intelligence. The bureaucratic machinations utterly fascinate me, notwithstanding WP:BURO...

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not.

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community.

Bureaucratic rules may not be the purpose of Wikipedia, but one would be hard pressed to find a more transparent example of a rule-driven system gone into metastasis.

Moulton 07:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making public your assertion that Picard edited her own bio page on two occasions.[3][4] While the IP numbers are registered to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, that doesn't prove who made the edit, and of course Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. If these edits are by Picard, they indicate that she takes exception to the label "anti-evolution" used by the NYT on the basis that the DI, as the organisers of the petition, "support many aspects of evolution such as microevolution so to label it anti-evolution is an attempt to sell more newspapers". This is an unwarranted and unsupported attack on the journalistic integrity of the NYT, and repeats a typical line about "microevolution" used by the "creationist" side in the creation-evolution controversy. That the NYT chose to describe it as anti-evolution is unsurprising in light of the repeated statements of ID proponents. If Picard wants to dissociate herself from the anti-evolution side, a reliable published source is needed. .. dave souza, talk 14:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I dunno that it was unwarranted. The NY Times had just carried a positive story about some of the research, but the story also had six factual errors, including several errors of attribution that garbled who had done which parts of the work and what their titles or positions were. If you've never had your work featured in a newspaper story, you might not be aware how many mistakes they typically make. Newspapers publish on a short deadline, so lots of errors get into print, and headlines (which are often added at 3AM by a page layout editor who didn't work on the story) can often misrepresent the content of the story itself. That Wikipedia is so cavalier as to intentionally publish as fact a known error in a headline is very telling. Moulton 00:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Plea

I do not know if this fighting with other editors seems like fun to you or not. I am starting to think that it does. However, I am asking you to just relax and cool it for a few days here. Let's allow the facts to unfold. Then we will have more information on which to base any changes to the article.

This is what I have been seeking now for a week, and why I stopped basically editing the article. When you get in these mini-edit wars, you make more cruft for others to have to read through, and you manufacture ill-will, as I fear you already have in some quarters.

I realize you are quite QUITE fervent about this, and have your own views about what Wikipedia is and should be and how it should be run and what rules it should have. However, your thoughts are just those; your own. Your ideas on how Wikipedia should run and what rules it should follow are not consistent with the way Wikipedia really runs, whether that is correct or incorrect.

Now if you want to change the Wikipedia culture and rules, if that is your true goal, you will not do it by the path you are taking. Become an experienced member. Learn a bit about the rules and systems in place. And the mechanisms for changing the culture. And then introduce your suggestions to the venues where they might do some good.

I have tried to shepherd you through this process. I have gone above and beyond what anyone would normally expect. I have your and Picard's and MIT's and the science community's best interests in mind here. I am not trying to pillory Picard. I am trying to gather more information so we can address all concerns. A win-win solution. Isn't that optimal? Isn't that reasonable?

I told you this a week ago. And I am telling you the same thing now. Let's work together, not at cross-purposes. Do not go out of your way to make the situation worse. Please.--Filll 11:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not fun. It's exasperating. I don't like to play competitive games. My joy is in creative problem-solving, not chess games.

The facts are unfolding, albeit slowly. In the meantime, doesn't it make more sense (from the point of view of Wikipedia) to hold off publishing controversial (mis)interpretations on the main page? What is the rush to publish potentially false and defamatory content derived from DI's pernicious reframing of a statement that six scientists view as an expression of the protocols of the scientific method (and not as an expression of support for any partisan political agenda).

My passion is for science and science education, and for functional systems. As you may know, my discipline is Systems Theory. I don't believe it is possible or practical to change the architecture of Wikipedia's structure, which is why I join with others who predict the failure of systems with that kind of dysfunctional architecture. That's a scientific prediction, grounded in model-based reasoning. I don't wish for Wikipedia to fail, but I fear it will fail for the same reason that any system with that architecture is doomed.

In order to arrive at a win-win (cooperative) solution, we have to shift the paradigm from an adversarial zero-sum game of competition to a positive-sum game of cooperation. As you may know, there is no known strategy for stimulating such a paradigm shift. I wrote about that in my essay on "A Beautiful Mind." To this day, I don't know how to solve that problem. That's one of the reasons I don't care for adversarial rule-based paradigms -- they generally yield zero-sum games.

I wish you had not taken the initiative to contact anyone at MIT. Your message was viewed as being part of the previous campaign of harassment of MIT people. I had to explain that you were not of the same stripe as the sociopaths who previously disturbed MIT staff with reactions to what was found on the DI web site. You see, that previous campaign of abuse and harassment, which caused considerable harm, ended up being investigated by the MIT Police, and now you have engaged in an act that, on the face of it, looks similar to them.

That's why I am seeking to get back to solving the original problem, which is lifting Wikipedia out of the trap that the DI sucked them into.

My plea is to cease and desist from publishing false and defamatory interpretations that play right into the hands of the DI. Keep in mind that DI is not just anti-evolution. It's anti-science. They are happy to undermine anyone in science, because science is against them from the gitgo.

A lot of people see DI as a tar-baby. They worry (and with good reason) that anything you do only draws you deeper into their tar-pit.

That's why I'm trying to avoid tackling DI directly, and do an end-run around them by establishing the critical thinking skills that enable a responsible person to sift scientific fact from political fiction.

I don't care if Wikipedia (like the NY Times) writes an article about political fiction, but it's crucial not to end up publishing an account of some political fiction as if it were scientific fact.

Moulton 12:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We have different views on the world, that is for sure...And you are already taking on the DI directly. You are naive to think that the DI is not here editing the article right alongside you.--Filll 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about that. Do you have any clues who, among the active Wikipedia editors, are moles for the DI? The one partisan editor with whom I have been most entangled acts as if he is working for the DI, against science, and against any protocols designed to arrive at the ground truth. Can you share with me (presumably in confidence, offline) who you suspect or know to be an agent of the DI? Moulton 13:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors can only be judged by their edits, and suspicions can easily be mistaken. For example, I notice you've been grateful for the assistance of an editor in removing statements critical of the credibility or truthfulness of the DI's presentation of this petition. Said user proudly displays a quotation from Sun Myung Moon, which immediately brings to mind the reason that Jonathon Wells took up anti-evolution and supported ID. However, that's likely to be entirely coincidence. ... dave souza, talk 23:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

People can hold partisan personal views and still maintain professional standards of ethics when wearing the hat of a Wikipedia editor. Steve appreciates the difference between opinion and fact, and seems conscientious about maintaining a neutral stance when the article requires facts. I agree with him that the biography of a living person is not the place to present opposing views of the controversy that had previously dominated the page.

To my mind, a number of people conducted themselves in an honorable and respectable manner, and worked hard to achieve the overarching goal of crafting an accurate portrayal of the subject in a manner suitable for an encyclopedia. I didn't always agree with some of the maneuvers, but I thought Dave, Steve, and Filll were among those who did their level best to achieve a respectable outcome meeting reasonable standards for journalistic excellence.

Moulton 04:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Wikipedia really just has to rely on using reliable sources.

If NYT says something, then we report NYT says so.

We can't read between lines, or add disclaimers. I appreciate you trying to paint Picard in a good light, but that simply isn't what wikipedia is for.

It's on the record she signed a petition that is on the record as being used in a very anti-evolution (education) way.--ZayZayEM 09:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No one objects to reporting what the headline in the NYT said. What is objectionable is elevating that erroneous characterization to the level of fact. When you cite the NYT article, the citation, down in the References, exhibits the disputed headline and identifies the WP:RS that penned it. That suffices to disclose what the NYT said, without elevating it to the status of fact.

Note that Kenneth Chang, whose name also appears in the citation, ends up bearing the burden for the headline, even though he probably never saw the headline, nor approved it.

Many people put their names to something in one context that's perfectly reasonable. And, as you well know, it's not uncommon for a partisan to reframe the statement within a different context. This is a classic way to change the way something is understood. Reframing is a classic feature of three-sentence jokes. The first two sentences of the joke are understood in one context, but the punchline changes the context, so that the first two sentences are now understood in a different light. In a sit-com, the classic response to a reframe barb is, "That's not what I meant," (or body language to that effect).

Consider a stage play like Equus or a novel like Wicked. These are dramas that exemplify reframing, so that by the end, the audience understands the protagonist in a completely different light.

See this version of the James Tour biography for an illuminating example of reframing as it is used more ethically to remove a stigma.

Moulton 13:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your input is requested at the following RfC

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton--Filll 19:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll begin working on that today. I have a number of previously unpublished comments to provde. It will take me a little while to format and compile them into a collection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moulton (talk • contribs)

Post your response here, not on the subpage in filll's userspace. I've moved your response to the appropriate section. ornis (t) 12:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not tamper with my response. Moulton 12:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen very, very carefully because this is important. Revealing other users personal details, even if they aren't wikipedia editors is harassment and will get you blocked indefinitely. Read these two guidlines very carefully before you decide what to do next.

• WP:HA#Posting_of_personal_information
• WP:PRIVACY

Thank you. ornis (t) 13:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to destroy yourself, then neither I nor anyone else can stop you. All I can do is warn you in all seriousness that what you are doing is going to get you banned for good. ornis (t) 13:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ornis, I need an impartial administrator to referee this competing guideline...

Off-wiki harassment

Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. As per WP:NPA#Off-wiki personal attacks, off-wiki harassment can and will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.

Moulton 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Moulton, your response was a pasting of emails and articles. Please view other Rfc's and the Rfc instruction page for how to respond. You need to address the issues raised in the Statement of the dispute and subsections of that, not argue a content dispute. This is not an article Rfc, this is a User conduct dispute, and even if it were an article dispute, emails are not reliable sources for anything. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I not entitled to introduce evidence that one or more of my critics has engaged in the aggravating practice of baiting via incivil remarks? Am I not entitled to introduce evidence demonstrating that my critics are not acting in good faith? Moulton 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I told you this before, in the strongest possible terms in a private email. What is wrong with you? You were warned. You did not understand that? You did not absorb that information? You responded back to my warning email about this topic. You do not seem to learn. I am outraged at this egregious and careless behavior, frankly.--Filll 13:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are outraged at the exhibition of evidence which speaks for itself (without any need to spin it, reframe it, or editorialize on it), then perhaps you can appreciate how identifiable living persons feel when they are subjected to the publication in the pages of Wikipedia of demonstrably false and defamatory material that has been spun, reframed, and editorialized from here to doomsday. Moulton 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to help you. I tried to advise you. You betrayed this trust in multiple ways. And this is only compounding the problem. It is too bad this is not a legal proceeding. I think you would be a good candidate for 2 or 3 weeks worth of deposition, under oath.--Filll 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course we feel mutually betrayed. That's another demonstration of our common feelings for each other. It's a conjecture (not yet a theorem) that adversaries eventually arrive at a state of mutual empathy, because they eventually arrive at the same affective emotional state, through the mechanism of a social drama. Moulton 14:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, here is what I find on RfCs for Users...

• RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted.

• An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors.

• In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it.

It occurs to me that I am entitled to demonstrate evidence that an RfC may have been initiated (or exploited by some) to harass or subdue another editor. There is no shortage of evidence that many of my critics have sought to subdue me. And there is striking (and stricken) evidence that some of my critics have sought to harass me, as well.

It occurs to me that if some adversarial editors wish to bring close scrutiny on me, they must be prepared to have that same close scrutiny applied to them.

I have made a good faith effort to respond in a timely, accurate, and professional manner, to what the above headline of this section bids me to do:

Your input is requested at the following RfC : Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton

I went to that page, found the Response section, and posted my response there, as requested.

Now Ornis is saying not to post my response there, but here.

Color me confused.

Moulton 14:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The world is a confusing place isn't it. You where NOT posting to the RfC that Filll gave a link to, and when I said "here" I assumed ( a mistake I won't make again ) that you would have the perspicacity to follow the link that I provided to the correct page. ornis (t) 14:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. Are there two different pages with the same RfC on them? This place is like a hall of mirrors. Moulton 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The page you where posting on was a subpage Filll created as a scratchpad in his userspace, where he could format and copyedit the RfC before posting it in the correct place. Why you posted there I don't know, since at no time has anyone given you links to anything but the correct live RfC. ornis (t) 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Like most other things on Wikipedia, this is something else you do not seem to be able to understand. However, I am confident that with persistence, you will see your way through to the correct page, by actually following the link that was posted above for you to follow. I am not sure why this is a difficult task for you, but I am seeing that it is. And after lecturing us for 2 weeks about how inadequate and incompetent we were in various ways too...--Filll 14:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So I can repost my response there? Moulton 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's where you respond, in the section labeled 'reponse'. Keep it on topic please, just your counter-arguments, and a statement of your purpose and intentions. Discussions or arguments should go on the talk page of the RfC. ornis (t) 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning: unless you have the express permission of the individuals who sent you those emails, do not post them again. If you wish to reference the blog, a simple link will suffice. None of your busy pasting has a thing to do with the rfc, so I don't know why you persist in pasting it. If you do not understand the process, and what is expected, please let me know and I will attempt to assist you. But pasting emails is not an appropriate response. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)