Jump to content

User talk:Axon: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎[[Open gaming]] again: bygones: moving forward
Axon (talk | contribs)
2,062 edits
deleting old talk
Line 1: Line 1:
== Miscellaneous greetings ==

[[Talk:Torture and murder in Iraq]] ''(past tense now?)''

::[[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|Be bold!]] -- [[User:Egil|Egil]] 19:33 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
----
Hi, I am a new comer here, and I found u at Queer wikipedians. I am now working mainly on Chinese verision about gay-related articals. And I think you can help me a lot. Hopefully we can be friends! :D --[[User:Gboy|Gboy]] 04:07 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

:Hi there GBoy. Welcome to the Wikipedia. I'd be more than happy to help you with your work here. My Chinese is a little poor (i.e. non-existant) but I'm more than happy to answer your questions. I think wikipedia needs more intelligent discourse of gay-related matters. Hopefully we'll be seeing more of each other :) --[[User:Axon|Axon]]

::Thank you! I found that there are so little information about gay in Chinese version that I am so shame of it. I am now planning to translate all the gay-related articles from English into Chinese.Gay can do things perfect too(much better sometimes) ! :D I am now looking for some info about crackdown on gay in any countries, I don't know if you have any? Thanks! :D --[[User:Gboy|Gboy]] 07:53 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I've been away for a while, so my welcome is belated -- sorry.

I've made some changes to [[reparative therapy]], and I hope you will take a look at them. I've tried not to add any bias to the article, because I really do wish to write from the neutral point of view (see [[NPOV]]).

Whenever I edit an article on a controversial subject, I like to get feedback from other writers, especially those who disagree with my own views -- to ensure that I have not unwittingly led the article astray from neutrality. (I'm guessing you and I might be polar opposites on homosexuality; correct me, please, if I presume too much :-).

--[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 16:20, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi Ed,

Not at all, the article on reperative therapy needs a little structure to it.

I not a great believer in polar opposites and I'm not entirely sure, given what I've read on your opinions that we are completely opposed on all subjects. That said, we probably do differ quite widely on certain topics :) Ah well, wouldn't life be boring if we all agreed?

Anyway, thanks for popping along and making you thoughts known,

--[[User:Axon|Axon]] Thu Jul 31 11:44:10 GMTDT 2003

Hello - I think you may have meant to create [[Axon/List of homophobic articles]] at [[User:Axon/List of homophobic articles]]. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 17:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==[[Amnesty International]]==

Axon, I appreciated your comments about my revisions to this page, and I agree with the thrust of your argument (we don't need to list every critical article in every magazine). I have some ideas about how to revise but I'm holding off because the last time I made any changes it prompted a small and irritating reversion war. When I get to it, I think the revision to the Criticism section could read more like "Criticisms of AI fall into two major categories- "availability bias" which suggests AI has more ability to collect critical information from societies that are more open and free while the worst HR offenders prevent AI and other NGOs from collection information, and "political bias," alleging that AI preferentially focuses its criticisms in such a way as to promote an ideological viewpoint.

Something like that- but anyway like I said I'd prefer to let it sit for a little while.

[[User:Kaisershatner|Kaisershatner]] 16:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Kaisershatner, thanks for you remarks. I've looked at the history of the page, but I have to admit that there are a confusing array of reversions and edits going on. I think the best idea - rather than waiting for one side to 'win' an edit war - would be to focus efforts of all parties to come together on the AI talk page to discuss our concerns. Perhaps you could describe the controversy on the talk page and ask for comments from the other editors in a more friendly way?

:For example, I've just left a comment about the strong bias of NGO monitor. As I noted, there are plenty of other sources of criticism for AI out there other than NGO Monitor which, whilst purporting to be neutral, is actually, whether rightly or wrongly, biased against all human rights NGOs like AI. Certainly, there are moer respected sources criticising AI out there. --[[User:Axon|Axon]] 17:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

=="The" in article titles==

We generally don't put "The" in article titles, partly because it looks better to link to the [[United States]] than to [[The United States]]. The main exceptions are the titles of literary works, films and newspapers ([[The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe]], [[The Lord of the Rings]], [[The Godfather]], [[The Times]], [[The Guardian]], [[The Independent]], etc.). A good indication is that if the definite article wouldn't be capitalised in the middle of a sentence it probably shouldn't be in the article title. [[User:Proteus|Proteus]] [[User_talk:Proteus|(Talk)]] 16:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==Re: Homosexuality and Morality pages==

I originally found your page by accident from following a note you'd left at someone else's page, leading me from there to happen on the pages you have an interest in, but I was really amazed at the Homosexuality and Morality page, as well as the nasty tone of the annoyed person bickering at you in the talk page to defend his continual re-adding of what looked like highly doubtful, unscientific "research" into a connection between pedophilia and homosexuality by a supposed pedophilia activist in Europe (Edward Brongersma -- don't know who the other two listed are). You indicated you had seen this research as well? The wiki entry for Edward Brongersma doesn't even say anything about what his profession is! It simply calls him an "advocate."

Were the so-called "researchers" involved scientists or psychologists or just cranks pushing an agenda? Were they writing about "studies" in their immediate neighborhood or dealing with people from all over the world? It appears to me that some of the bias involved is that of a particular country's attitude toward pedophilia being one associating it with homosexuality. I have always my whole life (in the United States) heard stories of pedophiles being typically some old uncle fondling a young girl, not usually a same sex situation; most people I knew growing up years ago did not associate the term with same sex behavior.

So to me, it is inaccurate for someone to foist on the world through an encyclopedia the views of one locale about some connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. The only connection that has made it in recent years in the U.S. start to be more associated with pedophilia than the previous associations of old man abusing a female child are the new stories in the past few years about Catholic priests committing pedophilia with young boys. Perhaps we should then associate religion with pedophilia?

I really found some older versions in the history file of that page to be quite offensively written regarding bias towards homosexuals; thank goodness it was updated and I do wonder a bit why to even have the topic (why not a "heterosexuality and morality" page as well?). I have also recently run across some references to "studies" emanating from a couple of European countries (Denmark is one) used by antigay conservative U.S. politicians to justify saying that extending the right of marriage to homosexuals would lead to more divorces and fewer marriages among heterosexuals, which seems a ridiculous assertion. My point is that there are some seemingly unscientific, oddball "studies" overseas on a number of homophobic subjects; perhaps there is so much freedom over there that they are having a backlash. Sorry to ramble but I didn't have a way to drop a message in your email box, where I'd have preferred to put something long like this. You didn't make your email accessible. Mine is. Glad you worked on helping the point of view of the topic. And no, I don't care to add to the discussion over on the topic talk page; I just wanted to speak with you directly for a minute about it, not create a public record of a few thoughts. My user page (and thereby my Email this user link) should be accessible through your history page if you'd like to reply. My work editing here as a newbie has nothing to do with this subject though; I just found it strange to see what happened there and wanted to say hello.-B

== Bias, phobias, and lack of intellectual honesty in certain articles ==

Hi,

Thanks for chipping in on the Homosexuality article. I am trying to keep my temper with people who do not practice intellectual honesty, but "some people's children" are getting my goat. I hope we can work together to pin some of the dodgy critters down. (Maybe a pro wrestler's "sleeper' hold would help.) ;-)

It may be Robert S. de Ropp who tells a story about his childhood in an English "public" school. One of the priests who helped run the place both played the music for daily religious observances and was the health teacher. He frequently admonished his charges that to maintain proper hygiene "You must powder your organ every day." The day after one trying class with this individual, when everyone assembled for morning devotions, it was noted that the organ console had been liberally dusted with talcum powder. Somehow I think we have at least one graduate of that school, or perhaps the organ player himself. ;-) (Actually, this story is more pertinent to the penis article than the homosexuality article, but, anyway...)

I can deal with people who would die rather than run naked out of a burning building, but I have trouble with people who tell me there is a non-existant law about something. How to deal with people who have learned to be artfully dishonest is a big question. I used to hang out with residents of a therapeutic community, and their approach was to get somebody into an encounter group and blast away their defenses. Unfortunately, that won't work in a Wiki environment. So curing the individual is impossible, and damage control becomes the order of the day. I guess we both need to walk around with fire extinguishers.

Best,
[[User:Kim 金|金 (Kim)]] 17:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:Not at all, although one has to suppose that the Homosexuality article will always be a magnet for these kinds of edits. There is little that can be done except to argue ones case sincerely, take nothing to heart and remember ones own dignity most of all. It looks worse for those rush around on Wikipedia editing without thought even though it sometimes seems the opposite.

:I especially enjoyed your story about the priest and the talcum powder. :)--[[User:Axon|Axon]] 17:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


==Atheism and Rationalism==
''you should then accept that lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existence''
:I do with all my heart. However, I could not say "there is no evidence" in the article, just because I coundn't find any within half an hour on the internet. If I had found a statement "there is no evidence" in a theological or medieval encyclopedia somewhere, I would have inserted it with a clean conscience. As it is, I simply avoided the issue by saying ''there is hardly any testimony'', trusting that if this is wrong, it would be corrected. I am well acquainted with the Middle Ages, and if there had been any atheist movement, I am almost certain it would have caught my attention before. I am therefore quite confident that I am right about this. But I am open to the possibility that I am missing something. I implore you to help me find a case of medieval atheism, as I would be delighted to find one. I imagine it would be possible to find some atheistic statements, not in theological literature, but maybe in popular plays, or courtly poems. Such would be valuable evidence, but they would most likely be attributed to villains and not represent anybody's actual beliefs.
:I think you should stop treating me like I didn't know what I was talking about. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;'''</small>)]] 14:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You claim to be a rationalist but you do not seem to behave like one. To make the edits in the article that there is no medieval atheism or that atheism was not persecuted by the Inquisition, you need to provide supporting references. I'm willing to concede that there is a lack of evidence for pre-Enlightenment atheism, perhaps such evidence would be impossible to obtain but I strongly disagree that it is a) impossible for atheism to have existed and b) that the lack of evidence directly indicates lack of existence - apart from anything else, one can imagine that any atheists that did exist were very much forced to keep their ideas to themselves. You yourself admit that weak atheism existed during this period.

John Miller in his excellent BBC documentary [[The History of Disbelief]] actually makes reference to this very subject, if I recall correctly. I shall be attempting to get hold of a copy of the documentary or a transcript to confim this one way or the other.

Despite you overly emotive pleas you have still failed to address my concerns and provide any evidence. Why are you responding here and not on the Atheism talk page? Why are you ignoring my comments and remarks and simply cherry picking those remarks you would prefer to respond to? --[[User:Axon|Axon]] 15:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==Islamophobia==

Why do you keep reverting my edits? What did I delete or change that was even remotely NEUTRAL? Is denigration more neutral than criticism? Is this: "In this case, the common experiences of immigrant communities of unemployment, rejection, alienation and violence have combined with Islamophobia to make integration particularly difficult. (See article by Tariq Ramadan in links.) This has led, in the [[United Kingdom]], for example, to Muslim communities suffering higher levels of unemployment, poor housing, poor health and levels of racially motivated violence than other communities. (See paper by Maleiha Malik in links)." objective and neutral? Or is it more of an attempt to explain why islamophobia is wrong? And what about the external links? should they only include those who represent a anti-islamophobia point of view? Another thing is, why do you mention that I edit as an "anon"? Does it matter? I can registrer if it makes you feel better? BTW, I just reverted the page again to the more NEUTRAL version.

:Sorry, who are you again? I think you can imagine why I reverted your edits: just check the comments, they're pretty self-explanatory. --[[User:Axon|Axon]] 16:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

::I am user:207.44.192.52 I understand that you consider the old version of "Islamophobia" more neutral, my question was: WHY.

Because, apart from anything else, that version is the correct version: not only are you an anonymous user making highly controversial edits but you have exceeded the three reversion rule. --[[User:Axon|Axon]] 17:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:Please refrain from making any false accusations. I did not go beyond 3 reverts nor did I violated any "three reversion rule". Please look at the edit history again. Anyway please remember: this articles title is "Islamophobia" not "why Islamophobia is wrong". A section with the title "criticism of Islamophobia" would be allright for me, and MAYBE some of the trash I deleted could be included in that section. To present criticism of Islamophobia as facts is not neutral and ofcurse NOT acceptable. The critics of Islam MUST be presented in a fair way, and to claim that "Muslim communities suffering higher levels of unemployment, poor housing, poor health and levels of racially motivated violence than other communities." because of anti-islamic criticism, is ofcurse not acceptable. Anyway, why did you remove the external links I added? Do you think the external links should only present the one side of the discussion? And what about "denigration"? Is "denigration" a more neutral word than "criticism". user:207.44.192.52

::Do you think the page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Islamophobia&oldid=8021453 as I had written it on Nov 29] is unacceptably biased (in either direction)? Certainly the Muslim-hater [[User:BSveen|BSveen]] changed it to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Islamophobia&oldid=7966748 this]. Any thoughts? [[User:GCarty|GCarty]] 19:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:::OK, will mark next rev's --[[User:Germen|Germen]] 17:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)




Why was Islamophobia kept ("important issue", "notable" were reasons given) yet [[Arab dictatorships]] and [[Ameriphobia]] were deleted because "too POV"? Seems like obvious political bias, ie. Lefty Wikiadmins are promoting anti-American views and rigorously deleting anything critical of anti-Americanism. ~

Thanks for the tip about signing. Neologism? It has been used by Front Page Magazine (FrontPageMagazine.com | December 17, 2001), appeared in a major American newspaper (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20041004-103823-3308r.htm) and even appeared in the venerable New yorker magazine in 2003(http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/030310fa_fact)! The New yorker = rightwing neologism? I'll have to write and tell them. As far as calling it racist, there is plenty of content that is openly racist, but people prevent deletion because they claim it's useage is a fact. (Again, double standards: arguments used for deleting one article are ignored to protect another. ) ~
:: As is clear from the [[Talk:islamophilia]] page, the introductionary paragraph of islamophilia was very POV. Please state your arguments for NPOV. Besides, please stop vandalising my contributions. --[[User:Germen|Germen]] 15:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Template:Gay==
Please vote your opinion of [[template:gay]]. Thanks. [[User:Apollomelos|Apollomelos]] 19:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== Adraeus ==

Axon, please e-mail me. Thank you. [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] 18:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Eliminiating "Homosexuality" from Homosexuality?==
"I think the point is not whether the editors of Wikipedia find the term offensive or not (that would be original research), but that a wide group of people do consider the term to be offensive, and a number of people purposefully use the term rather than, for example, gay, because many gay people find it offensive."

*from the [[Safe Schools Coalition]] of Washington's ''Glossary for school employees'':
"Gay: Preferred synonym for homosexual."
"Homosexual: Avoid this term; it is clinical, distancing and archaic. Sometimes appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adj.). When referring to people, as opposed to behavior, homosexual is considered derogatory and the terms gay and lesbian are preferred, at least in the Northwest."
-http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/RG-glbt-defined.html

*from ''The Guardian style guide'' edited by David Marsh and Nikki Marshall:
"gay: synonymous with homosexual, and on the whole preferable"
-http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/0,5817,184913,00.html

*from ''Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language'' by Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern, American Psychological Association:
"Lesbian and gay male are preferred to the word 'homosexual' when used as an adjective referring to specific persons or groups, and lesbians and gay men are preferred terms over 'homosexuals' used as a noun when referring to specific persons or groups. The word 'homosexual' has several problems of designation. First, it may perpetuate negative stereotypes because of its historical associations with pathology and criminal behavior. Second, it is ambiguous in reference because it is often assumed to refer exclusively to men and thus renders lesbians invisible. Third, it is often unclear."

"The terms 'gay male' and 'lesbian' refer primarily to identities and to the modern culture and communities that have developed among people who share those identities. They should be distinguished from sexual behavior. Some men and women have sex with others of their own gender but do not consider themselves to be gay or lesbian. In contrast, the terms 'heterosexual' and 'bisexual' currently are used to describe identity as well as behavior."

"The terms 'gay' as an adjective and 'gay persons' as a noun have been used to refer to both males and females. However, these terms may be ambiguous in reference since readers who are used to the term 'lesbian and gay' may assume that 'gay' refers to men only. Thus it is preferable to use 'gay' or 'gay persons' only when prior reference has specified the gender composition of this term."

"Such terms as 'gay male' are preferable to 'homosexuality' or 'male homosexuality' and so are grammatical reconstructions (e.g., 'his colleagues knew he was gay' rather than 'his colleagues knew about his homosexuality'). The same is true for 'lesbian' over 'female homosexual', 'female homosexuality', or 'lesbianism.'"

"Same-gender behavior, male-male behavior, and female-female behavior are appropriate terms for specific instances of same-gender sexual behavior that people engage in regardless of their sexual orientation (e.g., a married heterosexual man who once had a same-gender sexual encounter). Likewise, it is useful that women and men not be considered 'opposites' (as in 'opposite sex') to avoid polarization, and that heterosexual women and men not be viewed as opposite to lesbians and gay men. Thus, male-female behavior is preferred to the term "opposite sex behavior" in referring to specific instances of other-gender sexual behavior that people engage in regardless of their sexual orientation."

"When referring to sexual behavior that cannot be described as heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual, special care needs to be taken. Descriptions of sexual behavior among animal species should be termed 'male-male sexual behavior" or 'male-female sexual behavior' rather than 'homosexual behavior' or 'heterosexual behavior,' respectively."
-http://www.apastyle.org/sexuality.html

*from the ''Newswatch Diversity Style Guide'':
"gay: Preferable in all references as a synonym for male homosexual. Lesbian is preferred term for women. To include both, use 'gay men and lesbians. Best to use 'gay' as an adjective, not a noun, such as 'gay man,' 'gay woman,' 'gay people.' In headlines where space is an issue, gay(s) is acceptable to describe both."
-http://newswatch.sfsu.edu/guide/g.html

from [[User:Hyacinth/Style guide]]. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 18:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== [[ILGA]] ==

Hello, sorry about the minor-edit war on [[ILGA]]. I don't mind the removal of an ANTI-gay stance, but I'm not entirely certain how the ILGA article WAS anti-gay. Unless you think the (over?)concentration on the pedophile groups was itself anti-gay. That part of the article was I think written by a (I think) pro-pedophile and has been watered down to remove POV, and as it stood I think it needed changing. It made the ILGA article a mouthpiece of a partisan viewpoint (NAMBLA-ish). But trying to minimise the reporting of causes of the ILGA/UN crisis is itself POV - homosexual simply means same sex attraction. It is perfectly possible for there to be a homosexual pedophile. Homosexual does not mean confident and happily out Edward and Ben living together in a super flat overlooking central park... :-) But anyway, sorry again [[User:Lmno|lmno]] 18:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== RFA: thanks ==

([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 19:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Just a note of thanks for your comments on mu RFA.

== [[Homosexuality and psychology]] ==

Hi Axon: You deleted the statement "The overtly secular [[National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality]] is the only professional body to endorse reparative therapy." from [[Homosexuality and psychology]] with the summary "deleted POV: NARTH is not considered a "professional body" by all". Please explain why you consider the whole sentence to be POV. I can see that the adjective 'overtly' may tend towards POV (I sought a succinct way to acknowledge that NARTH claims to be secular and ecumenical but has critics who consider it to be dominated by conservative Judaeo-Christian interests) but I do not understand why the whole thing is POV. As I understand matters NARTH purports to be an organization for mental health professionals with a class of membership (Friends) for lay people. I am not a member of NARTH, its opponents or its allies. I hit this page through [[Special:Randompage]] and felt that the statement in this section about reparative therapies gave the erroneous impression of a single religious movement promoting these approaches. Hence my changes. Would it be better to restore the NARTH sentence and add the sentence "Some opponents of NARTH argue that its claim to be a professional body is misleading." or some variation thereof? --[[User:TheoClarke|Theo ]] [[User_talk:TheoClarke|(Talk)]] 00:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== New [[Wikipedia:LGBT noticeboard|LGBT noticeboard]]. ==

Hi, I've created a [[Wikipedia:LGBT noticeboard|LGBT noticeboard]] for wikipedians to post issues and concerns. Please take a look. Thanks. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 07:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

== I'm an idiot, sorry ==

>.< on the homosexuality and pedophilia page, I forgot to sign, sorry. I do not personally dispute that sentance, I just believe strong statements need strong back up--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 04:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

:Not at all. I was probably a bit abrupt myself. It's good people like you do call others on citation: without citation Wikipedia will never become respected. [[User:Axon|Axon]] 08:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

== Arbitration Committee case opening ==
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder]] has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder/Evidence]]. Thank you. -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 17:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey Axon, Please don't take offence over my comments on the [[Islamophobia]] discussion. I want to contribute constructively. The general mood on the page was pretty charged up, which certainly affected me while I wrote that comment. [[User:Deeptrivia|deeptrivia]] 29 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)

== Germen ==

I would certainly be happy to second this, and to take a look at any draft you've put together. Is there a link? Peace, [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 12:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No, that wasn't you being unclear -- that was me not reading very carefully. :> Sorry about that. I'll take a look. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 13:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Just left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGermen&diff=19079756&oldid=18776761 this message] on his talk page. Let me know when you need me to look at anything else. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 14:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have been directly ''involved'' with Germen for the past two months or so on various other articles and have gotten many of his articles deleted.[[User:Heraclius|Heraclius]]

This note from [[User:Zora]] on the archived talk page may or may not be of use. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamophobia/archive3#Revised_article_to_try_to_defuse_conflict] [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 14:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I saw that, but I wasn't sure that the unsigned post connected to Germen. If you think it does, I'm happy to help. Should have this for you in a minute. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 15:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

:Actually, by the looks of it it seems that was a response to an anonymous IP (possibly one of Deeptrivia's). Examining the edit history, the anon IP leaves a message on Germen's user page. [[User:Axon|Axon]] 15:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Very nice work on the RfC, quite complete. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=18666750&oldid=18666076#User:Dbiv] You should also mention more specifically that the 130.203.202.156 address masqueraded as "deeptrivia" and attempted to participate as a separate entity in both discussions and votes. More evidence of your incredible patience with him in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section might also be good. A user named [[User:Habap|Habap]] agreed that Germen was acting in bad faith; perhaps he/she should also be contacted. [[User:Dcarrano|Dcarrano]] 15:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
He also seems to remove NPOV tags on his own initiative [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bat_Ye%27or&diff=19015753&oldid=17778658 here]. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bat_Ye%27or discussion page] ''did'' alert to an NPOV concern, and I'm not sure it's proper procedure to simply delete the tag in any event. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_non-Muslims&action=history This history] tells a similar story. Maybe [[User:Irishpunktom|Irishpunktom]] should be contacted as well?

Sorry, was away on vacation for a week. Signed the RfC appropriately today. --[[User:Habap|Habap]] 13:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Bad faith/clearly incorrect accusation of sockpuppetry [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=15496163 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=15495887]. [[User:Dcarrano|Dcarrano]] 15:40, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only interaction I can remember which I've had with Germen was voting "keep deleted" on one of his VFU nominations. His behavior there was stubborn, but not a violation of any policy which requires an RFC. With so little knowledge about this case, and so little experience with this user I cannot endorse or certify the RFC. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes I still endorse the rfc. I've added some more evidence, too. -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs2000]] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new Talk] [[Image:Uk flag large.png|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 16:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have fixed up the RFC. There were some things that were not set out properly.

*Extensive discussion goes on the talk page.
*The date you finished creating the page must be entered.
*The RFC '''must''' be listed on [[WP:RFC]] after creation.

I have done these for you. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] 19:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

:Ta. --[[User:Axon|Axon]] ([[User_talk:Axon|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Axon|contribs]]) 13:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

==Talk:Islam poll==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam#the_poll] Some people from an anti-islam site like to add their link & stuff on all major Islam articles .I thought you might be interested in this .[[User:Farhansher|Farhansher]] 05:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

==mediation==
hi Axon. I am quite pleased by the apparent readiness of Germen to show good faith in this; so far he has already removed the infamous "list of suspected Muslims". I have created [[User_talk:Dbachmann/Germen_Axon]], and I suggest you add that to your watchlist. I would invite you to add a list of content issues that in your opinion lie at the core of the dispute. I would also invite you to make a suggestion how Germen's anti-Islamic views may be properly incorporated into wikipedia, with attribution etc. It appears to boil down to which voices are notable enough for inclusion. There can be no doubt that there are notable voices, both pro- and anti-Islamic. Which is more notable, the Runnymede Trust or Ali Sina? I don't know, but the parties will have to agree on some standard of notability. My suggestion would be that the Runnemede defintion should stay until some other definition that is clearly more notable is brought forward. Anyway, I am not aware if this is the main point of the dispute, and I hope to be better instructed by both you and Germen. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 09:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

== new vfd ==

The prior VFD that you voted at ended with no consensus, a new VFD has been opened at [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims]]. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] 18:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
==VfD pollution ==
[[user:-Ril-|Ril]] enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Historical_persecution_by_Muslims_%282nd_nomination%29#.5B.5BHistorical_persecution_by_Muslims.5D.5D] --[[User:Germen|Germen]] ([[User_talk:Germen|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Germen|Contribs]] [[image:nl_small.gif|25px]]) 10:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

== Homosexuality in India ==

There is very little on the Internet or on Wikipedia about Homosexuality in non-Western cultures, including India. I was wondering if you would like to contribute towards creating a detailed article about Homosexuality in India, one that discusses historical, literary, cultural and religious attitudes towards homosexuality, as well as the current situation. I know for a fact that India has a significant LGBT community, though a lot of it is underground. I wrote the article [[Gay rights in India]]. Could you take a look at it and integrate it with a larger article on Homosexuality in India.
--[[User:Notquiteauden|Notquiteauden]] 01:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


== Hi ==

As the vfd implies, i only did that in frustration over them having vfd may "conspricy" projects. Not because i have anything against SIIEG existing. Rather, i hoped that i would be more obvius that the conspiarcy guild have the same right to exist as the SIIE Guild. But apparantly not, people are so alergical to the word "conspiracy" that although it has several articles, it is not entitled to have a project aimed at improving them. I really shouldent have Vfd:ed SIIEG, but i got frustraded and felt that i hade to do something. However, the result was that its ok to have a guild about Islam, but not ok to have a guild about conspiracies.

--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 14:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

:You are correct that what i did was not right, and any positive effect it had is not to be merited to me, rather them. You are right that cooperation is the best solution. Best regards! --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 22:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

==Germen and Mediation==
well, I agree it is being difficult. but I would like to hear Germen's take before I declare this mediation a failure (of course mediation is over as soon as one party decides it's over, meaning you can withdraw your agreement anytime, unilaterally). I note that you were quite eager to report Germen for 3RR, instead of asking him to step down. You are both steeped too much in this personal conflict to do the article much good, ihmo, and my suggestion is still that you agree to a 'soft' ban of not editing the article, ''unless'' you reach an agreement via mediation first (as in the case of the intro). Let's see what Germen says. If you both think it's pointless, you're off to the arbcom, I suppose. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 16:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
:Actually, I was the one who first suggested that Germen broke the 3RR in an attempt to have him stop editing (as he had done over 100 edits in a few hours).[[User:Heraclius|Heraclius]] 16:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
:::right. it appears to me his editing pattern speaks of frustration. I do not understand what his point of view actually amounts to, but I imagine he just feels outnumbered, since it is irrational to edit when you know you'll just be reverted and blocked. mediation should be ''in the interest'' of the outnumbered party, since the other party can just sit back and click revert. I have asked Germen how ''his'' definition of I'phobia would look like, but he hasn't replied. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 16:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
::::I would note that his editing pattern started almost as soon as the article was unprotected and no-one started reverting his edits until he started reverting himself. I would argue he becomes outnumbered later but all the more reason to try and get agreement on the talk page first rather than editing as quickly as possible. [[User:Axon|Axon]] ([[User_talk:Axon|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Axon|contribs]]) 16:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::he ''is'' unblocked now, right? It appears he's away from the screen to cool down. Wait for his return. If he apologizes, or at least agrees to observe the soft ban in the future, that's fine. If he returns as an edit-warrior, I say we drop it here. Just leave the article in its current state for a day, that doesn't hurt anyone (I do not think it is awful, right now, and it will probably never be a FA anyway). [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 17:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

::::I understand he only has a soft block (which we both agreed to on IRC) so I assume he has moved away as you suggest. There is no immediate rush: I'm about to clock off myself. An apology would be nice and may even inspire similar apology from me. -[[User:Axon|Axon]] ([[User_talk:Axon|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Axon|contribs]]) 17:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
::::I would also note he made several rather uncivil remarks about me on IRC, accusing me of making an "ad hominim attack" and of "lying", and what I can best describe as "gloating" when he was unblocked (he laughs very hard at this point). [[User:Axon|Axon]] ([[User_talk:Axon|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Axon|contribs]]) 17:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Axon, of course I was happy my unfair and unjust block was reversed, as everyone who believes in justice would be. If you objectively state things which are not true, you are lying. You did. If you attack people rather than use arguments, as you did by nominating me for a RfC and RfAr first instead of solliciting mediation, this can be described as a ad hominem attack. If you don't like your behaviour described in those terms, I suggest you better change your behaviour.--[[User:Germen|Germen]] ([[User_talk:Germen|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Germen|Contribs]] [[image:nl_small.gif|25px]]) 14:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

== [[Aesthetic Realism]] ==

I see that you have been a regular editor of [[Reparative therapy]]. This is not a topic that I know about in particular, but I presume that you do and that's why I'm writing. I've been participating in editing the article on [[Aesthetic Realism]] (AR). Here's a quick version of their story: In the 1970s and 1980s the group offered "consultations" (a form of talk therapy) for "change from homosexuality." They got some publicity, including national TV appearances, in the early 70s and later bought a number of newspaper ads. The ads, signed by those who had changed, first declared their wonderful change. Then later ones claimed a conspiracy of silence about the change. In 1990 AR decided to stop offering change as a topic for consultations, purportedly because they didn't want to take sides in an increasingly polarizing cultural issue. However they have not disavowed their teachings or beliefs on the matter. The group, led by the late poet Eli Siegel, takes a unique approach: they believe that homosexuality is caused by having contempt (as are most personality disorders), in this case for the opposite sex. Through the study of Siegel's poetry and lectures a student can learn to appreciate opposites and lose their contempt. AR's belief makes no allusion to religion, morality, or Freudian psychology, and relies entirely on ethics and aesthetics. That's the thumbnail version. The claims of a conspiracy of silence almost seem true because there is so little written about this group, which is only based in New York City. I'm writing to you because we're trying to figure out if AR had any cultural significance in its heyday and, more specifically, if they had any influence on the later reparative therapy/ex-gay movement. Do any of your reference materials mention them one way or another? There's no rush, but the input of someone with broad knowledge of the field and the references would be helpful. Even an opinion that they had no significance would help save the time otherwise spent searching for a red herring. Thanks, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 04:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

== Mediation with Germen ==

How is it going? The RFAR is about to be rejected due to mediation being tried instead. I wondered whether mediation was still progressing sufficiently well for this to be allowed to occur. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] | [[User:-Ril-/Nissa|*]] ) 21:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

== Open gaming ==
== Open gaming ==


Revision as of 10:53, 10 October 2005

Open gaming

Hi Axon, if you look at the anon's contribs, he isn't actually posting often, [1] so it would be hard to block him for disruption, unless there are other IP addresses involved. I'd recommended simply reverting him when he appears, if you feel his edits aren't valuable. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Open gaming again

Hi Axon, I'm sorry you're still having to put up with this. I've blocked him for 24 hours for disruption [2] and I've put the page on my watchlist in case he does it again. I must admit that I have no idea which is the more accurate version, but his repeated unexplained deletions and abusive edit summaries are not acceptable. When he says that he's been through the dispute resolution process, do you know what he's referring to? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the RfC and RfAr yet, but if it's true that he's gone through the entire dispute resolution process and there was no support for his position, and yet he's still deleting material with no discussion on talk, then we can treat it as vandalism, and just keep blocking him. Alternatively, I can lock the page, but it seems a shame to do that because of just one user, and we can't keep it locked forever. However, if he starts using proxies or different accounts, I'll certainly consider protecting. Let me know if there's any particular course of action you'd prefer. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Axon&oldid=25194317"