User talk:Jersyko/archive4

Re: Joshua Foer

It shall be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myglesias (talk • contribs) .

In re Guardianship of Kowalski

A very informative and well-written article. It was interesting, to say the least. On a side note, and please forgive my ignorance on this, what does the "In re" refer to? - Dozenist talk 03:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I take it back. I sort of know now that I read the article on it, and found that the translation reads to "in the matter [of]," but I still did not get in what situations you use it. - Dozenist talk 03:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking User:War cow

Done. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 01:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

Restoration Spectacular

Thank you for removing the edit of this DEMON "The Final Solution". He is posting a virus - I had to restart my computer cause of him! NicAgent 02:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Rollback

Nope, not for me at all. I have yet been able to use it once. - Dozenist talk 23:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Memphis

No problem. I'm getting needled now, too. Do you think 'second year undergrad pedantics' a supposed to be roundabout way of calling someone Sophomoric? -- Vary | Talk 20:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the policy - I'm not an admin, and I don't know if it's okay for me to remove that comment, even if it is a blatant attack, it being the admin's noticeboard and all. -- Vary | Talk 22:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Saks' Article

Your the researcher, so do your research. Must I do everything for you ? Mr. Saks has given permission to include information from the webpages about him. He would most certainly rescind if he were aware of your donnish tenaciousness to assault his character. Reneec

Court case infoboxes

Hi, in response to your query on Wikiproject:Law, check out User:Postdlf/court_case_infobox. Tufflaw 19:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Abortion Debate

Why was this information deleted that I place on the abortion debate:

There also some conservatives that believe that abortion should be allowed. The belief is that abortion is a good thing that stymies liberalism. Their belief is that since those parents are liberal, there is a good chance they will raise a liberal child. In committing abortion, they are taking away a person who could vote liberal or sway others to liberalism.144.126.161.43 14:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this going to be addressed? 144.126.161.43 18:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• While I concede that this is an argument that some conservatives likely adhere to, it is not one that is generally discussed in the normal course of public debate. Upon further reflection, I would be fine with including this argument in the article (it is actually one that I think some Republican politicians secretly adhere to, and is probably a reason that little is done in regard to abortion rights by politicians on the right, but that is merely my opinion), provided that it is reworded to address the fact that it is not a argument that is commonly presented in public discourse. I apologize for removing it from the article instead of taking the time to reword it as such. - Jersyko talk 19:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand now where you are coming from. Looking at it it could easily be construed that that was the mainstream opinion (which it isn't). Another thing too is that it looked like an attack on liberalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.161.43 (talk • contribs)

• Conservatives generally oppose abortion because we will need those kids later, to send to places like Iraq so they can die for a cause, i.e. for the protection of the conservatives' earthly treasures. Wahkeenah 02:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. -- Vary | Talk 22:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page, which was put there by my brother. -Natankawesch 23:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

City Hall

I may not be able to have time to go during lunch, unfortunately. My clinic times are really heavy currently, unless a patient cancels, which has not been happening of late (thank goodness). I would need to wait a few weeks or see if there is a cancellation, that is, unless in the very unlikely event that city hall would be open on a saturday. - Dozenist talk 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... fine. He was just grating on my last nerve. - Dozenist talk 23:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at talk:list of charismatic leaders

I really appreciate that someone came over from Rfq. Andries 21:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

seaworld

Look, as I said in the original edit, and as I said in my message to you, everything I put in was from the "Memory Hole" link at the bottom of the page (which was on the sea world article before I made any edit), as well as the Orca wikipedia article. What exactly is "unverifiable"?

As far as "neutral point of view," I think touting orca births without discussing that fifteen of them have died is hardly neutral. The seaworld article now looks like it was written by someone from their PR office.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time with this. I already spent twenty minutes trying to make things better, and now I've having an argument with some guy I've never met. 128.12.185.4 06:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks!

... for taking the time to vote at CfD, which led me to visit your userpage, which introduced me to [[Image:Happy face ball.jpg]], which gave me a new desktop background for workspace 3. Do you have a higher res version I could trouble you for?

Thanks much, Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I replied to your e-mail before getting your message, so feel free to disregard my response.

It makes a nifty desktop. Cheers! Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In re Guardianship of Kowalski

I just finished reading your article. It's nice to see a clean, well-written article, complete with an infobox, attention to detail and concise prose. May you continue to write articles about the cases you're studying! --Zantastik talk 05:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Built To Spill Entry

Hi,

Im a fellow BTS fan and I am pleased with the work your putting into the wikipedia entry. One thing though. Could you maybe update the photo of the band?

Thanks!

Adam

TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004

Greetings. You were involved in the discussion regarding the deletion of certain lists as copyright violations. TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004 was determined to be a copyright violation, and was deleted. I restored the article, but removed the list itself, simply describing the list so as to avoid copyright problems. The article is now nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004 (2nd nomination). If you'd like to weigh in, I'd appreciate it. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Rjensen

Can you please give me some help? You, and some other users have been having trouble with Rjensen and now he's causing more problems. See User_talk:Markles#Rjensen.—Mark Adler (markles) 13:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ripped picture

Oh, that was a great pun. - Dozenist talk 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Gatekeeper (politics)

Any idea what happened to that page sometime after you commented on it? It comes up as a "Bad title" now. Schizombie 02:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, must have been a glitch, for several minutes it was coming up with the Wikipedia:Bad title message, but it came up for me now. Schizombie 02:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think things are getting worse with this page. The article now has a cite to a private e-mail reprinted on the nn website leftgatekeepers. Good grief. Is there another mediation process that could be used for it, or should it go to AfD (which would make Wikipedia a gatekeeper in their eyes, I imagine). Schizombie 23:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and put an AfD on it. Schizombie 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Why thankya! I think I am in my own little corner of the wikipedia world, and no one sees me. :-P I am most grateful. - Dozenist talk 19:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Hi; Just fyi, I think Hypnodude (talk · contribs), who initiated the RfC on Terrorism (disambiguation), is a sockpuppet of banned user Zephram Stark (talk · contribs). I have blocked him and undone his edits. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The courts and fluoride

Actually, I was going to find some time to ask you to help me with the law side of the article. I figured you would have easier access to such knowledge, and I would greatly appreciate any info you can find (and ESPECIALLY if info can be documented which case it was and if there is a website with the court case on it). Anything I find, I will be placing it in that section, and you can just move things around or find better references for it. I would be most grateful. - Dozenist talk 18:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have yet to personally see a case of fluorosis, and thus have not had the chance to take a picture of it. Apparently, nothing is up on the commons either. - Dozenist talk 22:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

However, I did just think of something. Maybe a fair use picture can be found on a government site or something of that nature? I do not know how that works really, so if you think we need to find a picture like that then I will leave it up to you!! - Dozenist talk 22:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

WikiThanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them!

Also, thanks for revering my userpage. That one was...bizarre. -- Vary | Talk 17:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

COM:FPC removal

See Commons:Featured_picture_removal_candidates/Image:A_small_cup_of_coffee.JPG [1] Gordo 09:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Democratic congresscritters

Hey Jerseyko, I always thought that it wasn't POV to predict the outcome of an election when there is no realistic chance for the other party to win. That's not an opinion, that's fact. Like TN-9, for instance--nobody seriously expects a Republican to win. It would definitely be POV to say that one particular Democrat will win, on the other hand--even if a retiring incumbent endorsed a candidate in the primary. Blueboy96 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for help with "illegitimates" list

Thanks. That's the first article I ever nominated for deletion. I didn't know what I was doing, and I had mixed feelings about nominating it, but I just don't think it serves any purpose. -- Andrew Parodi 05:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to play the rules

Dear Jersyko;

It is obvious that you know and " play " the rules quite well whereas it is my first time editing a text on Wikipedia. This said your position is not a fair position since you are not giving a balanced view of the issue based on the facts available but rather on your POV of what they should be. A good example is the wording " Most amalgam contain some mercury ".... this is patently false since by definition an amalgam is a mixture of mercury and other metals. ALL amalgams contain mercury and a lot of it. I could go on but I know you are not interested in the facts just your POV.

Sincerely;

Dr. Imbeau

Dental Amalgam

No problem. Dr. Imbeau's edit to your talk page came up in newbie contributions, and caught my eye, so I looked into it. I didn't see s/he'd already been reported on the 3RR noticeboard, so I didn't block, but I think giving him/her one more chance to start discussing before a block can't hurt. -- Vary | Talk 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Bias again ? NON NPOV

Dear Jersyko;

While I understand the basis for your comment it is again not really fair as in the intro you do clearly emphasize that the FDA ( implying the US government ) is supporting the use of amalgam. A balanced point of view which is neutral ( NPOV ) should also give factual evidence that there are other governements on this planet who do not support the use of amalgam. And that is simply what I have done by adding the information in a short phrase.

By refusing to allow both facts you are unfairly placing emphasis on one point of view rather that the actual factual evidence.

You know as well as I do that many people browsing will read only the intro. As for the rest of the article, there are many flaws but since it seems so difficult to get a factual balance in the intro, I thought I would concentrate on that first.

So will you do the correction or do we have to go through a discussion of what is neutral point of view or not according to your POV ? —This unsigned comment was added by Dr. Imbeau (talk • contribs) .

Bravo

Glad to see that we are making progress.

By the way I have read the history and realized that while you are attempting to bring a neutral point of view to this issue, this is a very technical and complex issue demanding a broad and deep undertanding of the factors involved including knowledge in toxicology and human physiology. It is easy to be influenced by your own beliefs or perception or even by what most people think is true...

Comments on the paragraph below:

Some legislators have introduced legislation to prohibit further use of amalgam fillings. In 2002, eight members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the Mercury in Dental Filling Disclosure and Prohibition Act (H.R. 4163, 107th Congress, 2nd Session, April 10th 2002), which would have prohibited any mercury in dental fillings starting in 2007. In an interim period between July 1, 2002 and 2007, the bill would have required labeling of amalgam with a warning. The bill was referred to a subcommittee and was tabled (not considered). Other countries, such as Japan, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden,[5] have passed similar legislation.

I suggest that the last phrase should be re-worded. As it is placed, right after the phrase stating that the US bill was tabled, one could be led to think that the same occurred with the legislation in other countries.... which is clearly not the case.

As a law student you probably realize that a lot of political pressure is involved on this issue and that the scientific evidence, regrettably, is not usually the determining factor in such political decisions.

Dr. Imbeau

NPVO FDA / SCI ( KemI )

Dear Jersyko;

One more point regarding the text under the REGULATION heading.

While you mention " Some countries, such as Japan, Norway, and Sweden, have banned or stringently regulated the use of mercury in dental amalgams, citing health concerns "

This does not have the same weight has the text: " The FDA maintains a web page on the use of amalgam, however, on which it states, "no valid scientific evidence has shown that amalgams cause harm to patients with dental restorations, except in the rare case of allergy."[5]. "

I suggest that you add a phrase taken from the KemI Report to give balance:

" The Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate ( KemI ) judges that there are strong grounds for banning amalgam for environmental reasons. From a health point of view there is every reason to apply a precautionary approach. " I would place a link to the report and possibly.

Readers who will consult the report will soon see that 1) there is valid scientific evidence to support the KemI decision. This will put things into perspective with regards to the FDA statement which is 1) outdated 2) not as comprehensive as the KemI statement.

Dr. Imbeau 23:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Metal release from amalgam

Dear Jersyko;

The text below needs revision:

" Similarly, some proponents feel that the mercury contained in amalgam fillings is safer than pure mercury compounds due to the differences between pure metals and alloys. Many of the discussions on this topic have centered on whether the amalgam mixture is stable or whether any metals are released from the fillings after being placed in the oral cavity."

Since it is a fact that mercury is released on an ongoing basis from amalgam there is no foundation to have a discussion about whether or not metals are released from amalgam. Apart from mercury there are many metallic corrosion by-products also release from amalgam. All NPVO and science based.

Will you fix it ?

Dr. Imbeau 01:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Amalgam article

Ha, I would have jumped in sooner, but every time I clicked 'save' someone else had edited the page and there were new comments to read. That talk page has certainly grown since yesterday. -- Vary | Talk 05:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Jill Carroll

Great edit on the Jill Carroll page. I have copied your edit to the John Podhoretz page, as he was one of the first to float the now-discredited "Stockholm Syndrome" theory, and I thought it appropriate to add it there. Please let me know if that's not all right, and I'll rewrite the entry. Thanks. Eleemosynary 21:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• The appearance of compliance in the name of self-preservation is hardly "Stockholm Syndrome", and it's good that that line of thought and the complaints of certain conservatives are not getting much ink. Meanwhile, I see you're in an Edit Jihad with some user over the use of the term "terrorist" vs. "kidnapper". I'll be enjoying watching from the sidelines for once. Good luck. 0:) Wahkeenah 02:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your note. I wonder if you picked up on one comment I made, about how certain conservatives might be a bit nervous about this case (if they were capable of such deep thought) because Jill's willingness to tell the captors what they wanted demonstrates what some critics of administration policy have said, namely that captivity and tortue do not necessarily produce any useful information. Wahkeenah 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You might think this trivial, but there is much truth in humour: In Dr. Strangelove, Peter Sellers (as Mandrake) tells General Ripper about being tortured by the Japanese during WWII. The General asks if he gave them any information. Mandrake says, "I don't think they wanted any; I think they were just enjoying themselves, the swine. They make such bloody good cameras, though!" Wahkeenah 03:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Party

Thanks for holding the fort against that Wolfstar character in the Democratic Party article. Good luck in your exams and I hope your honeymoon is a happy and exhausting one. Griot 00:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders Please read this before making false statements about Major vs Larger. Merecat 16:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow

I'm usually better than that. I hope he does take the advice to heart. I have absolutely no problem with editors who have extreme POVs, only those who try and insert it into articles and refuse to discuss things. Oh well, see you around. And thanks for the heads up about my misplaced comments. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editing in Wikipedia

Dear Jersyko: Have a look at this article [2]in USA today. If editors had to identify themselves it would certainly eliminate a lot of the vandalism and other problems. I am not sure why it is deemed important for anonymity to be part of Wikipedia. If it is necessary then maybe a section for anonymous editor would help fix the problem. One thing I have learned is that when people are held responsible for their actions it does bring an improvement. What do you think ?--Dr. Imbeau 03:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Dear Jersyko: I posted it on your talk page because it is a separate topic and I did not know of any article with a discussion on this going on of which you were part. It is also link to the same issue that was raised before but deemed irrelevant to the topic at hand at the time. Regarding anons, as you call them, I see your point. I guess there are advantages and disadvantages to anonymity. However in the world in general anonymity is not, in my view, a big advantage. If someone feels the need to make an anonymous contribution, one would have to ask why. If there is no fear or constraint on freedom of speech than there is no reason for anonymity. Of course that is IF as sadly the reality is somewhat different.... Maybe Mr. Siegenthaler had ulterior motives but some of the points he raised were valid and confirmed by Mr. Wales. Wikipedia is obviously still evolving.

As for your own identity I am not trying to find it at all and have no need to.--Dr. Imbeau 05:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Members of Westboro Baptist Church

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Members of Westboro Baptist Church -Will Beback 23:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jedforest Instrumental Band

What do you think? I believe the text may be a copyvio since it is almost word for word from the "about" page of the website. And oh, welcome back. - Dozenist talk 13:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I guess I had a slight concern that much of the material was copied almost verbatim from here, but at least we both agree that the article needs improvement. - Dozenist talk 22:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, what do you think of this edit? - Dozenist talk 22:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ford and seat history

Problem here, Jerseyko, is that there appears to be a consensus that district pages can't include the history of the seat currently represented by the district, and it appears best to add it on the current holder's page. Blueboy96 18:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm with ya there. I figured this could be a compromise until a solution could be worked out. See the message from Bjoel5785 on Sunday. Blueboy96 18:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The histories of congressional representatives from certain areas should be documented in articles devoted to the politics of that area, for example Politics of Memphis or Politics of Davidson County, not in articles about numerical districts (which are not tied to a certain location). Kaldari 23:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The administrator has spoken--looks like my original idea of adding the seat histories to the current holder's page might be the way to go. Blueboy96 21:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

I'm sorry, but I really can't get involved in a content dispute right now. Work is beyond insane. But if it's still going on when things quiet down, I'll stick my head in. -- Vary | Talk 03:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to correct the undue weight issue with the water floridation piece. That isn't an easy one to work given the diffculty folks have divorcing themselves from their own point of view and agendas, but I think you have done an excellent job maintaining a cool head even while others in the debate have shown the ability to let their emotions take over. I'll try to help mediate when I find opportunities.--Sk8ski 14:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting

You (and several others) saved me many keystrokes by reverting the most recent round of trivial/POV H1-B spam. All I had left to do was leave a message on a talk page: see 71.123.40.76. Much thanks. -- Paleorthid 01:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Law selections

Greetings, fellow WikiProject Law member! One of our tasks on this WikiProject is the upkeep of Portal:Law, where we have set up a four week cycle wherein each week one of four key features - the selected article, biography, case, or image - is rotated out. Previous selections can be found at Portal:Law/former selections. Please contribute your thoughts at Portal talk:Law as to likely candidates for future rotations in each of these categories. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I've just done a huge rewrite on Mike Hawash. Input, positive or negative, appreciated. Cheers. IronDuke 02:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike Hawash

Regardless of anything else going on there, you should note that User:Jayjg 'has semi-protected both the Mike Hawash page and (astonishingly) its Talk page. User:Anomicene apparently added the tag to reflect that reality. My limited understanding of Wikipedia policy is that Jayjg should have added those tags, and should not have protected the Talk page. -- 88.149.150.163 09:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now been threatened with banning if I continue to edit the Mike Hawash page (so much for getting an account!). You are one person who brought some NPOV and balance to the page -- it is a shame you did not continue. -- BlindVenetian 10:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Court stuff

Hi there! I read some of your comments in the talk page of the Hudson v. Michigan article and was happy to find someone at last who knows what he's talking about regarding SCOTUS. I agree that some cases already seem to be foreshadowing what trend the Roberts Court will take.

By the end of the term I was thinking of adding certain sections to some articles:

1. Description of the "Roberts Court" in the SCOTUS main page. By the end of the term we should have a complete idea of the path that might be taken by the court.

1. Include in the Justice Kennedy article relevant information regarding Kennedy's great power in the current Court. I don't know if you have noticed, but Kennedy seems to have blossomed thsi term, writing many many important decisions....Gonzalez v. Oregon.....Garcetti v. Ceballos.....the death penalty cases.....and the all-important concurrance in Hudson v. Michigan which basically states that he controls the future of that case. I think this should be noted in the article. In fact, I'm writing an article for my Faculty Magazine regarding Kennedy's role in this court, but I am putting it on hold until I Hamdan v Rumself is resolved, cause I really want to read what Kennedy will have to say...and most importantly, with which side will he vote.

All in all, I wanted to know if you have any opinions regarding this ideas. Also, good luck with your bar test preparations. I must say that I might be one of the few persons that actually envies the stress that you are going thorugh right now. I can't wait to for the day I take my bar test! Anyway, I'll be grateful for your feedback regarding the SCOTUS stuff I mentioned.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 05:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

JUST A QUESTION ON RfC That you saw before editing Rotary International

Hello, we introduced an RfC at that link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society%2C_law%2C_and_sex

that was REPLACED by the pro-Rotarian. Check History page please. Would you be so kind to say us : what was the text you read : - our original claim ? - or the text placed in replacement by BridesMill ? May we have your opinion on that replacement that bridesmill did (substitution) ? Thank you

Our original text was placed three times in three subjects for RfC : ethics, politics, society, just one was replaced. By which subject did you came to visit our discussion ? Was it by the page with the text that BridesMill substituted to ourse ? Salutations, thank you PierreLarcin2 20:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK Thanks for comment. We were here shocked that the edit war went on us at the RfC page even, so wondered if this could influence you. WA ask comment and WE do not see our work as it was presented aka "shortened" by the other party. WE DO NOT ASK like that.

Still being shocked. We let long things/comments on RfC because we do not want to hide multiple aspects PierreLarcin2 21:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert the text at the Rfc page again. At the top of the page, it says "state briefly and neutrally what the debate is about . . . Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page." Your text is remarkably long for a request for comment and is not neutral, as it is argumentative. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 22:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

my intention is not to continue the debate. I am shocked by "Significance of KKK and Nazi associations " to replace my rfc. It is not at all the problem. The problem is wikipedia fiddling. Please remove KKK and nazi associations as the Rotary is not associated with KKK. The problem is "transforming a segregation of woman in a natural evolution process" "nominating someone associated with racists or extreme right movement as Honorary Rotariand and hiding that fact" We here perfectly undestand how to be concise but we are not sharp as you are : we said "possible wikipedia fiddling"

Thank you to leave it like that. PierreLarcin2 22:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC) OK Shortened RfC text and hope OK for everyone Sorry but I had duettists show of reverts from Bridesmill and AndyJones for weeks and that's what we saw they did AGAIN on the RfC even !! Salutations, PierreLarcin2 23:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

the wording is not important, except for the "fiddling" (not a classical edit war) and the 'RI problem with women'. We need opinions and possibly sources, and came on RfC after advice of User:Angela (if you know her :-). We work here at two and try to have constant doubts, and we need to be sure before going to Arbitration that we do not forget anything. Please leave it like that now : 3 sentences. Previous RfC (Irak War)has 5 sentences. It is our RfC after all ;-) The word "fiddling" is important Many thanks. PierreLarcin2 23:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fiddling is

1/ if NPOV, fiddling is technically a biased way to influence wiki. Here they change structure of texts to smooth facts. Here they change the URL source ("Famous Rotarians" URL) to hide "bad" politicians like Pinochet. Good or bad, Pinochet is there...so the problem is complex : date and change of Rotary source to influence media. It is not an edit war : it is presentation of problems, and sourcing dissimulation, etc. Very difficult to prove. Anyway, Rotarians are a huge network no ? Do you think they use Wikipedia ?

2/ if POV, fiddling is our opinion. We speak here of human science (sociology). It is impossible to be neutral. So we announce that we are critic against rotary. So people can decode and check. This is the theme of Max Weber famous sociologist.

Above, if is has little affect on the final outcome, no problem. We do not want to affect anyone, just have opinions and check if we forgot something before arbitration. The less remarks, the best work ! So please leave it like that. We do not fight sure. Thank you many times for your help. Best regards PierreLarcin2 23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)