User talk:PelleSmith/Archive 3

Discussion

At this time, the discussion on all parts is more in depth than I am comfortable dealing with. I am going to call in an Administrator to review the case and take the appropriate actions he deems necessary. Please hold further discussion until your contacted by an Administrator. Dusti^{talk to me} 20:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Pellesmith (from Dustihowe's Talk Page): "The IP" is not posting from various IP's in order to void anything. "The IP" is poosting from various addresses because the area is so remote that the only available connections are "dial up" and this, by it's very nature, results in a freshly assigned IP address with each new connection attempt.

Have you all advanced so far beyond the technologies available to us that everything must arouse suspicion of a great conspiracy?--216.167.133.159 (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no conspiracy, nor have I claimed one, but why should s/he resist the urge to simply create a user account, and then get upset when someone else has gone through the trouble to string together some continuity and transparency in her/his edit history? I was only suggesting that her/his behavior was such as to suggest exactly that explanation. It has been suggested that this IP user simply get a user account at which point none of this would matter. I'm not sure what the problem is with that. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

.PelleSmith (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, on Dustihowe's Talk page I was not talking about your IP, unless you are also the IP starting with 75 who was trolling Talk:Fitna (film). Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, PelleSmith. I misunderstood.Th formatting of these talk pages is very unusual to me. I accept full responsibility for themisunderstanding and ask your forgiveness.--216.167.133.159 (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. When I first replied I thought we were talking about the same thing, the other user, but then I realized the confusion. All the best.PelleSmith (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSN

Thank you for trying to bring some sanity to the POV battleground that is Talk:Fox News Channel, however I would caution against feeding the trolls. It seems pretty clear after a week or two of dealing with those two (or possibly one) that they have no grasp (or intend to grasp) our policies. The effort is valiant and appreciated, but probably not as productive as we'd like. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I saw no trollish behavior on that page. Blaxthos has a very strong opionion that Fox News Channel is bias, but the only verifiable study says otherwise. Find sources to back up contrastng claims. Preferably ones that aren't opinion. Assume good faith, and no personal attacks. Bytebear (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you giving this lesson in Wikietiquette to Blaxthos or to me? FYI, I would describe one particular editor's behavior on that talk page as a classic example of trolling. You are welcome to your opinion of course. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks, you make a very good point. I will respond to it on RS/N shortly, but in the meantime I suppose I should point out that economics and political science are now almost a continuum academically, in that they use similar methodologies and individuals frequently shift between departments. Insofar as media bias is a political issue, then it is the province of political scientists and thus economists. I should add that it is also definitely true that this imperial notion of economics has been strenuously objected to, though it appears those who did have lost the battle. That's just a general overview, though. The more focused reply will come on the noticeboard in a bit, once I have gotten over the madness that has just been exposed at AN/I, and started a stub or two. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's Kurt Jacobsen on the subject of the takeover of political science, specifically the American Political Science Association, by advocates of neoclassical economics. Its written from a viewpoint sympathetic to those resisting the takeover, but makes it reasonably clear that its a done deal. Amazingly, I notice that the New York Times recorded the phenomenon right as it was starting, at the University of Rochester in 1969. Chalk one up to the Grey Lady's prescience. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I can believe the importation story. In my own university political theory is now staffed by scholars of the history of thought, and to learn any actual political theory one has to go over to the philosophy department.

I do believe that quantitative methods of this sort are now increasingly seen in sociology as well... be warned, empires are acquisitive.

What I meant about the study was that to the degree that the political bias of the media is something that political scientists study, and that quantifying it is something that quantitative political scientists would like to do, I imagine that the frontline study of it in the QJE is the state-of-the-art in that discipline on the subject. That doesn't mean, of course, that media studies and cultural studies won't have a different state-of-the-art, which is also relevant. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

RSN Commentary

Oh, I believe in "reasoned discussion based on factual evidence about the reliability of sources" ; it's just that you utterly failed to provide any. Regards Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert C. Tucker, a Sovietologist who wrote his PhD dissertation on Marx, wrote two biographies of Stalin, and edited the Marx-Engels reader, thinks that "A knowledge of the writings of Marx and Engels is virtually indispensable to an educated person in our time"? Qu'elle surprise! In any event, your point didn't address mine. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the group apparently exonerated me, stating that they shouldn't let me know about them because I would object to their tactics. But, as usual, don't let the facts interfere with your POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Back in the real world, they were apparently impressed by my commitment and loyalty to the Wikipedia system. Your attempts to tie me to that group are an amusing diversionary tactic, but easy enough to see through. Please don't bother posting insults on my Talk: page again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

FNC

If you're going to edit war to include "right-way" as an accusation of bias in the Fox News Channel article, the least you can do is provide a source. The one that follows the sentence does not include "right-wing" anywhere in the article. - auburnpilot talk 14:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. Please note that you are not being invited to do this to cast aspersions on you and your editing in any way, and this invitation should not be interpreted in this light. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Picard "challenge" to coinb a word

I don't believe that he has any interest in truly discussing the article, so perhaps disengaging with him would be best. I think that some of the others on the anti-ID side are more reasonable. (Why look at that AGF!) :) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Chilean Australian

I have balanced out discussion on Chilean Australian so go to the talkpage and view my comments please. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am completely calm and do not need to calm down. I did not make it confusing I just added where my comments would have been if it were not for me being blocked by telling the truth. 1)The ABS data is confusing to people like Kransky who don't understand it, as you can see in my comments I have explained the logic of it so you should now understand. 2) It is a reliable source and has been verified by the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎. This can and is being presented factually and your opinion is based on Kranskys biased opinion polluting your head. If you take the time to read further you will understand why this is not in fact the interns estimates and why it is the Embassy's information. The data provided by the Embassy does not conflict with the data provided by the ABS. I am not sure why you do not understand this as I have now explained it on the Chilean Australian discussion page, so my request to you is that you read my replies to everyone's comments for clarification. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to take my advice about calming down then its your loss, but it was a friendly piece of advice that I wont make again. The source is not reliable for facts and the RS Noticeboard did not tell you anything other than that. Your statement above is entirely false: "It is a reliable source and has been verified by the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard." I know this because I am one of two editors who commented there. The fact that the source is quite possible accurate, at least in asserting a higher figure than the ABS because clearly the ABS data suffers from various problems, does not make the source reliable. I'm sorry but you need to familiarize yourself with the conventions here for reliability. The embassy website is not de facto reliable for demographics. They are clearly just making an educated guess. The suggestion is that you can use the source but only if you correctly attribute it. This means mentioning the embassy and mentioning the nature of the claim, since it is not as far as anyone can tell derived from scientific methodologies. Again, like I said, it is very possible that they are entirely correct, but that does not make the source of this data reliable. I am not confused, nor are most people in the discussion. That is something else you need to accept here, because if you continue to claim this someone will soon take offense.PelleSmith (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how it would not be accurate. It seems very logical to me ad as it is the Embassy who provides this data why would it not be accurate? They have to them available all the data concering immigration of Chileans and Chilean Australians, so who better to make this very realistic assumption? This view is futher supported by the new reference provided by Matilda and is quite realistic to assume their have been 5,000 more Chilean Australians in the time from 2001 - 2006. I don't see what the problem is with the embassy's estimates. They are in the best position to make this guess. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not with what is most probably true, but with what we can claim as reliably sourced'. I think you are having a problem separating the two. The new source is a reliable source, but as others on the talk page have been trying to tell you, the embassy's "assumptions", however accurate they may be, are still not reliable. The embassy's assumptions cannot be presented as factual. They are not experts on demography, and they have not shown any application of a scientific methodology. Their conclusion is certainly not published in a peer reviewed journal or by an academic press. You need to have a look at the relevant guidelines and policies and hopefully doing so will make this clear: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will look at the links you have provided, but the many sources which the embassy have would include demographers. They have mostly incorporated this into their assumption and I still don't know why you think they can't be presented as factual, when they are. And this has been futher supported by the new data found by Matilda provided by the demographer Jupps. Kransky mentioned he has met him so I wonder what his view on this would be. I am most certain he would agree with the Embassy's estimates as his work was published in 2001 based on the 1996 census and the Embassy's was last updated in June 2006 based on the 2001 census. The Chilean Embassy has access to all the sources including demographers, how are they not reliable? But like I said I will take the time to read the links. Please respond to me based on what I have just said to you. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Given your arguments I think you very much so need to read up on our policy regarding sources. Even with the new source we cannot present the 40,000 as factual, since it is an educated guess. What makes the new source better is that it is an educated guess by a known expert in the field. Your assumption about the embassy is not necessarily true and it is no more than an assumption. We have no idea who made the embassy's educated guess and that's exactly the point. Please do read up on those links and try to wrap your head around those guidelines. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry I will and if I find it can be used as an RS I will be making this quite certain. The new source is and educated guess by a known expert in the field, but what makes it reliable. The fact he has said it? Or the fact it has been published? Because if what Kransky said is true and not a random comment to make himself look better, then Kransky may be able to contact him about this and then he can come and edit himself using himself as a reference. Because as I said earlier I am quite certain the number would have increased in the 5 years and the 5 000 increase seems quite reasonable, and I'm sure Mr. Jupps would agree. But also if what your saying is true, then I am extremely disapointed because upon learning this you will find out that most the article is referenced by the Chilean Embassy, even the parts in Kransky's revision. So if it is not an RS like you say, even though Itsmejudith has lead me to believe otherwise, then a whole major revision on the article is needed with new sources provided. Which really to me seems like it would not improve the article at all and instead worsen it a great deal. Please reply to me TeePee-20.7 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The embassy may be reliable for certain things. What makes the other source reliable is both of the things you mention, the way in which it was published and the authors known expertise. Please read the policies and stop leaving me confused messages. Thanks greatly.PelleSmith (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopeless, don't bother further contributing your opinion on this matter. Cheers TeePee-20.7 (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Chilean-Australian. Resolution sought

ATTN: PelleSmith, Pippu d'angelo, Itsmejudith, Blnguyen, Angusmclellan, SQL, Ned Scott and AussieLegend

I think it is in all our interests that we resolve the debate on the cited number of Chilean-Australians.

TeePee and myself have presented our arguments and rebuttals for some days now.

I thank you for your attention to the issues, and especially for bearing with us in this challenging debate. While I can not speak for TeePee, I would assume he is equally grateful.

But now is the time to get this debate finally finished.

I have drafted a comprimise version here (15:58, 17 May 2008 ) which provides references to the Jupp 2001 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestry estimate, with caveats attached which explain their respective difficiencies.

Now I respectfully ask if you could pass judgement on my text for this version, with a support or oppose provided on Talk:Chilean Australian. If you have not responded by 20 May I will presume you have elected not to take part.

I myself, and I would hope and expect TeePee, will abide by your ruling.

Thank you. Kransky (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Although I do think it is in all our interest that we resolve the debate, I still think there are some issues needed to be addressed. I am equally as grateful as Kransky for all your time and effort but do not agree with his revision especially since it still contains information which has been referenced by an invalid reference which has been the major issues I have had with him throughout the whole history of this article. My version here provides references to the Embassy 2006 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestory estimate. I respectfully ask you view my edit first as I asked first and tell me what problems you have with it before viewing Kransky's revision. (This was the terms I agreed to Kransky before promising I would not revert your revision, as you did not respect my request and want your revision to be viewed first I do not see why I should respect your request and let the article remain in it's current revision especially since you have provided that invalid reference which you have been doing for months). Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

TeePee I have reviewed your version ... we all have. The embassy is not an RS and at best should be presented with careful attribution and context. You present it as if its just fact: " Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, the total Chilean-Australian population is around 45,000 persons.[7]" Now that a known expert in the field can be brought in with a similar figure the embassy's educated guess is completely unnecessary in any form. Please review the guidelines I asked you to look at. Maybe then you will see the problems with the embassy as a source, and why the demographer used in Kransky's version is much preferable. Also, you keep on saying that he has unreferenced additions but I don't see that, nor do I think does anyone else. What part of his version is unreferenced? Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Read my other reply in reference to the Embassy. No one see's it is unreferenced as no one has respected my request to thoroughly read the discussion befor coming involved. I have mentioned it that many times that I feel it warrants it's own section which you can view at the talkpage. If people do not understand after this then I think I should check myself into a mental assylum. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR Report

Feel free to fix it. :) No issues with me. Bidgee (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Irreligion map source

PelleSmith, I took the map that used to be there previously, Image:Irreligion.png, and added to it in according to the data in the Irreligion article at the date I edited it, December 3, 2007. The sources for the map are the same as the sources for the statistics in the article -- so if the stats in the article have been updated in the meantime, the map needs to get updated as well. Miranche (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but ...

PelleSmith, I understand your frustration with the ID related articles. I also think you were absolutely right about the wording of the petition. It is regrettable, how much fighting was needed to get away from anthropomorphic language. I'm also disturbed by the insensitive and eventualist attitude, i.e, putting anti-ID material in a biography, and then urging other editors, who complain, to add whatever they want to balance it. Our policy on biographies states clearly

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.

We had a similar situation on H. Allen Orr, when an editor wanted to devote an entire section to Orr's criticism of Richard Dawkins, ignoring the rest of Orr's scientific career. The only difference then was that pro-Dawkins people dominated the discussion, and we forced the editor to first add the other material, before he could add stuff about Orr's anti-Dawkins commentary... So I think you have every right to be frustrated about what happened at Rosalind Picard, but...

I wish you took into account life on those controversial articles. There really are editors on the other side, who argue again and again to make the same changes without respecting neither common sense, consensus, nor policy. You called these phantom editors, but sadly they are very much real and editing. With so much POV-pushing, there seems to be little choice than to push back, even if sometimes it goes a bit too far. The solution, I think, is not to hit someone in the head, but get more of us working on these controversial articles; trying to both help keeping the POV-pushers at bay, and also provide some balance with reasonable arguments as you did on Talk:Rosalind Picard.

When I began on Expelled, I yelled loudly about how "biased" the article was, and it was received with annoyance; but I have quite consistently received reasonable answers when I have argued reasonably. I feel we can make slow progress and get people to change their attitude without all this fighting, can't we? Merzul (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What you say is certainly sensible, and I thank you for writing it but one thing to consider is that I'm not particularly interested in editing ID related entries--I came to Rosalind Picard, as did many others, out of a concern relating to BLP. As soon as I set foot on Talk:Rosalind Picard I was bitten, ditto for all the other uninvolved editors who came there. Filll piled on insults and kept on telling me to go do some real work, as if trying keep semi-slanderous language out of BLP is not "real work." Then he and others kept on acting like the Picard entry was just another ID entry, and the rest of us didn't know what the kind of waters we were wading in so we best just take our naivety somewhere else (reality check--ID is about one hundred slots down in relevance on that entry). Of course I was told as well that clearly the entry was all about ID because it wouldn't exist had she not signed the petition--eh hem, as if someone's coatracking justifies further impropriety. Now, in the wake of all this Moulton unbanning discussion Filll runs around spreading this fantastical version of reality and I guess I don't have the stomach for it. Of course he's not the only one either. I don't doubt you that there are some ID supporters out there, and on entries like Expelled, or the Discovery Institute, etc. that it is not always easy to get real work done. But at the Picard entry there was no ID supporter present the entire time I was there despite the fact that accusations were flung about galore. These accusations don't even have a lick of logic to them because why on earth would anyone who supports either ID or the Discovery Institute want to protect Picard from being unfairly or unverifiably associated with them? I'm pretty sure the exact opposite is true. But then again I don't doubt that Filll and company have some pretty elaborate conspiratorial theories about how it actually would help the DI's nefarious aims to take such a seemingly innocent position. As to arguing reasonably you may also be right about your own experiences, but in the specific arena I did not find that to be the case. Reasonable argumentation was only met with accusations both of policy violation (incivility, meat puppetry, etc.) and problematic personal beliefs (ID, etc.), unverifiable claims, and so on and so forth. Reason did not beget reason, in fact I think reason only infuriated and entrenched them even more. In the end, as long as this type of behavior is allowed to continue, it will remain a detriment to this project, and I'm afraid that the BLP situations I was privy too show a very high possibility that they may only escalate in the future. Anyway I'm sure I've not said anytyhing you don't know already, and again thanks for the words, but as soon as I get over this crap I'll probably forget all about the ID Wikiproject until something blows up again. Best.PelleSmith (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My intention was to express some sympathy to perhaps help you get over this crap as soon as possible because I fear your intervention will only serve to confirm the stereotypes that Filll has in his mind that there are three kinds of editors 1) the trolls, 2) the hard working people, and 3) people like us, who don't understand what it's like dealing with trolls, and just want to annoy the good guys about being civil and engage in pointless fighting.

I don't know what the underlying problem is, maybe it really is the trolls and what we have is the inevitable outcome of the current editing model. Or maybe your forceful intervention and lecturing is necessary, I don't know, but Nightscream and GTBachus are also lecturing on behaviour issues, and I simply think that all this poking is getting counter-productive. Sure, I have essentially the same concerns as you have, but as you confirm, neither of us is intending to commit our lives to editing ID-related articles. This means that when we are gone, it will be up to the WikiProject Intelligent Design to continue doing what they do, and 99% of what they do is excellent, so what exactly do we want to achieve and how do we best go about to achieve it?

I think that's important. It is very easy to get caught arguing, and lose track of our goals. I actually have a plan to create The Wiser Concedes Barnstar for people, who walk out of arguments, although they were right. I think you are right in all respects, but the question is what trying to prove that to others actually achieves. Perhaps you could clarify here what you wish the outcome of your intervention would be, so that you don't let the frustration of how you were treated influence your judgement of how you should now act to most effectively influence people's behaviour.

I don't know if any of this makes sense, and you are one of my role-models on the Ways of the Wiki (as you can see on my user-page), so I do trust your judgement on how to handle the issue. Best wishes, Merzul (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right and I think I am carrying myself away, way too far away. I don't know that lecturing ever fixed anything around here, and I didn't really conceive of it in that manner until I read this comment (thanks for the perspective). Yelling louder wont open anyone's ears, and the more I prod the more it probably starts looking like I'm just trying to get back at someone who scratched me and left a rash. Stop scratching the rash is what I really need to do. I should also probably just stay away from entering the same editing space as those by whom I feel scratched, but I think coming to that very sensible conclusion was not in the books for the last few days, since I felt that this was exactly how it all started--"you don't belong here, you don't understand this turf, etc." Anyway swallowing my pride and moving on is most probably the most productive thing to do, and I do believe that all of this may have done some good in the end. I'm not entirely sure what goes on in the real ID entries, but just maybe a little more care will be taken with BLPs in the future. I don't know. Anyway thanks, I needed all that. When did I pen that comment you quoted on your user page btw? My memory is horrible ... PelleSmith (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Although swallowing one's pride is hard, it makes one even more proud afterwards :) And I do think that people will be more careful with BLPs only tenuously related to the movement. About the comment on my userpage, I don't remember the exact context, but I think it was some newly registered user, who went around creating criticism of atheism articles and various ridiculous categories, and I wanted all the stuff deleted. The comment itself is here. Merzul (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear PelleSmith, Thanks for your thoughtful responses and helpful references on the RS noticeboard and Sahaj Marg pages, respectively. They are greatly appreciated! Renee (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem.PelleSmith (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ilkali

Dear Pelle,

sorry to bring up an unpleasant issue, but I am finding User:Ilkali high-handed and unpleasant. Even comments that do not include put-downs express a kind of superior attitude. He uses wikilawyering, quoting a few different tangential guidelines and won't take reasonable or sourced replies that show him to be wrong. I'm no expert, but he seems to counter-attack when wrong to mask his rushing to judgement when he doesn't really understand issues or policies.

I've warned him for multiplying tangents, which is time-wasting trolling, and no longer argue with him past one or two replies. I'd be interested to know if you could prove me wrong about all this. I'd like to know he has been a constructive editor and been co-operative in other contexts.

Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, I do not know this user and have had but one interaction with him/her in the past. I'm not sure what I can do to help. I looked over your disagreement on Talk:Gender of God and I think it is obvious that s/he is conducting her/himself in a much less pleasant manner than you are, but it also seems that you both had a hand in how out of control your disagreement managed to get. Best thing to do is is to try as hard as you can not to react to the other editor's tone of voice, and to consider the merit of his/her points without reacting emotionally first. If they are in fact trolling, then the only thing one can do is ignore them, but I don't really think I saw trolling, just two people stubbornly butting heads. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to look over the discussion. Anyway, I was seeking info regarding Ilkali's edits in other circumstances, and you have clarified that you have no complaints. That's good to hear. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support at AN/I

Thanks for your support in regards to the attack by Guettarda over at AN/I, but it seems like things have gone as far as they reasonably can, so you should probably disengage, too. Yeah, it means they'll get the last word, but it won't do any good to go over existing territory with that group, as they tag-team quite effectively. At this point, Guettarda isn't going to post evidence or retract the statement, and there isn't anywhere else to reasonably take this, unfortunately. I knew there was a good chance Guettarda would get away with it, but I had to try. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion to disengage. I feel for you regarding the spurious accusations, and I find it troubling how easily members of the ID Wikiproject make these types of accusations. I think we have somewhat different concerns though. You want a smear on your good name retracted and I more generally want the admins to do something instead of just sitting back and pretending that problems like these are best ignored. Other than what initally came from the now "involved" admins I see no suggestion that Guettarda's behavior needs to be taken seriously by anyone in authority, and that type of reaction is a detriment to us all in the long run. But, I think I've made my point and you're right. Time to disengage. All the best.PelleSmith (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Civil discussion

Hello, PelleSmith. I agree with much (or all?) of what you say at User talk:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. The methods you're suggesting seem to be similar to what I'm suggesting, or complimentary.

I would also like to commend you for the exemplary civility you're showing in that discussion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Astrotheology

Hello, PelleSmith. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, — Dzonatas 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk Pages

I have no problem talking, but if you and Hrafn result to irrational beliefs, can't understand NPOV, and use ad hominems in your actions, there that is highly distracting. — Dzonatas 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dzonatas there is nothing irrational with wanting to follow basic guidelines for RS and V.PelleSmith (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Natural theology. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — — Dzonatas 01:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are also engaged in this same "edit war" the only difference being that you want to inappropriately tag an entry apparently based upon some WP:POINT that actually has nothing to do with the entry in question. Don't worry you wont find me violating 3RR, but keep in mind that since you have warned me you have evidentially made yourself aware of the policy as well. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No WP:POINT to be made. You are clearly linking to an article that lacks citations. The opinions you use to assert the merge/link highly lacks quality WP:RS citations to back it up on the article. That is all. — Dzonatas 16:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Natural theology is a highly notable concept with a voluminous intellectual history and you know this quite clearly from simply reading the entry, however lacking it may be in references currently. Tagging a page that is clearly notable with importance tags, based upon some technicality, and seemingly out of retaliation because a truly non-notable concept has been so tagged, is not how we do things here. We do things to improve the encyclopedia not out of spite. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand they way you want it to read. It just simply needs to be cited. Consider what you did at astrotheology, I can't find an edit where you have been constructive to add material to the article itself. It's like trying to safe guard it for your pov. It is very unclear why you can not accept the other pov when the books clearly state them. — Dzonatas 22:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

When out of other options accuse those who oppose you of trying to push a POV. Very good. Applause.PelleSmith (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd think that if you truly would be constructive then you wouldn't outright delete it and rather try to make several suggestions where all of us can agree. Instead, you want to take the stance one the one-against-many argument. You don't make it any easier -- do you understand that? Or is not making it easier your intention? — Dzonatas 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to find somewhere else to push your POV Dzonatas. You fail to show any effort to conform to basic standards we have here regarding verification and sourcing. I really don't know what else you want me to say. I will continue to try to uphold these standards. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You have been named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dzonatas. You may wish to make a statement at the page. Durova^Charge! 04:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

European ethnic groups

i inow that you misundsderstand me because i inow what I think and you do not. I do not blame you for misunderstanding me, I just wanted to clear up the misunderstanding. But you seem not to be interested in clearing up the misunderswtanding, you seem to be interested in ome weird kind of pssing match or debate. I am not interested in debating with a person who has expressed an actual desire not to understand me.

I wrote "But we are not just talking about a linguistic group (that would be clear enoug), we are talking about an ethnolinguistic group i.e. not just a language but the peole who speak it." because that is what i interpret the article to be saying. Is it what I believe? irrelevant. It does not mater what I believe because Wikipedia editors do not assert their own views into the article. I am concerned with what reliable, notable sources say, and what the article says. I think if the article is going to present this view it needs to provide verifiable sources, and I said as much in my comments to DAB, which opened the discussion. I also feel the article should include notable views from reliable sources about ethnic groups, and "ethnolinguistic." Arya agrees with me, I am still not sure why you do not. But i do not care. My intention was to raise issues about the article as it stands, you are just looking to pick arguments with editors. That's not my bag. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Slr, I'm not trying to pick fights with anyone. If you are concerned with the specificity and clarity of the entry contents it is not helpful to use vital terminology on the talk page in ways that are rather imprecise and unclear. I believe it is important to clarify these matters, as I believe I have done. It also appeared to me from your initial conversation that without wanting to own up to it, you were pushing genetics as if genetics was the true basis for ethnicity--e.g. there is linguistic differentiation but then there is what really defines a "people". If you feel slighted in some way because I decided that it was important to clarify these matters, then I apologize, but I found it rather impolite of you to suggest that the matter was one of my misunderstanding. You are right, I do not know what you "think" and I cannot claim to understand "you" but I can read what you write, and so can any number of people who come to that talk page. I am a fluent reader of the English language and fortunately no one has to be a mind reader to comprehend the most common meanings conveyed by its use. You words, I'm afraid, are not under your control and I've offered you a very sensible understanding of them, one that no doubt is shared by others. If you find that this reading does not coincide with your intended meaning then I suggest you don't simple make the odd excuses you have presented above, but take seriously the interpretation presented before. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your message but all I can say is you misunderstood me and when I told you you misunderstood me I wish you had said either "thanks for the clairifaction" or "Well, I still am not sure I understand you, can you be clearer ..." I never pushed genetics. I raised a concern that the article was pushing genetics, that the article was written to suggest that ethnolinguistic groups are not just people who share a language but a stable continuous population of people who share a language over a long period of time. I did say that genetics and language are different and should be treated differently. I never said that genetics is the real, or better than language, as a marker or basis for identity. DAB may have claimed that I was saying this, and you will just have to decide for yourself why he would misconstrue my comments.

I am not the first person to have voiced this concern - that the article mixes up genetics and language and shouldn't - several have ... and they were practically chased off the page by other users. I assume you read the rest of the discussion. Arya took a similar position to mine and as he makes clear stopped editing because he felt his views were not welcome.

I do not question your fluency in language, but I propose two possible reasons why you misunderstood me: first, you may not be aware of arguments I had on this page, pages it was derrived from, and linked pages like Ethnic group with other users who insisted that ethnicity = race = biological group ... if you have not been ollowing this page from its origins there is no reason why you should be aware of this background and I certainly don't balme you if this happens to be the case, I am just offering a reason. Second, you read my comments in the context of DAB's comments. All I can say is that DAB either does not understand my point or does not agree with it, but what he claims is my point is not my point and in fact after he first responed to my initial comment, I had to correct him that he was misinterpreting my point.

Language is often unclear and I am not upset when anyone misunderstands something I write. But when I explain to them that they misunderstood what I wrote, and when I use the opportunity to try to explain more clearly what I mean, and people still act as though I mean what I just said I do not mean, I think it is perfectly understandable that I would get upset.

I am especially upset because following my comments Alun and then Arya mad very constructive comments, and I registered my support for Arya's comments - I thought the discussion was moving in a positive direction. I think your comments had the effect of steering the discussion back in the direction of DAB's way of seeing things, and away from Alun and Arya. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Slr, I made it abundantly clear, with direct quotes, that I was dealing with what you wrote in your answer to my initial question. It does happen that what you wrote to me suggests precisely that Dab was not crazy for interpreting your initial comments as he did, but again I was referring directly to what you wrote. It is counterproductive to write one thing, have someone comment on what you wrote, then come back and say ... well what your read isn't what I meant and you just don't understand me. I understand that you wish once more to take control of your expressions after the fact and claim some kind of ownership of them, but that is not how communication functions. You did directly suggest that a people, are such by genetic standards, as different from what ever language they may speak. This is exactly the most clear position the text I answered takes. If this isn't what you wish to convey consider the fact that you may be mistaken in how you have expressed yourself. Consider that an outside observer is fully capable of reading English, and is fully capable of understanding the lexicon in question, and may have constructive criticism to offer you if in fact you are poorly expressing your thoughts. I should not need to have read the entire talk page archive to understand this very simple point. The article as a whole does mix and match genetic and cultural characteristics in a problematic way, and I agree with you on that and I have stated repeatedly this agreement. On the other hand it is entirely incorrect to construe ethno-linguistic groupings in the manner you have, and doing so in fact confuses rather than clarifies this mess. If you can't bury your pride for two seconds and understand the fact that you may be doing something counterproductive, however noble your motivations are, or however productive your end suggestion is, then I'm truly sorry for not comprehending that before engaging you in critical discussion. When you repeatedly identify all problems with the those misunderstanding fools who naively and mistakenly believe to be actually critiquing what you have written, then my friend there is little hope for reasonable discourse. I'll disengage. However, I suggest you consider your use of terminology in these debates, and consider that when you think someone is "misunderstanding" you, it is in fact quite possible that you haven't been clear. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we just flat out disagree when you write, "It is counterproductive to write one thing, have someone comment on what you wrote, then come back and say ... well what you've read isn't what I meant and you just don't understand me." - this is the only way I know of for people to clear up misunderstandings. When I misunderstand what someone has told me, I certainly hope that they will tell me I misunderstood and then try to explain again what they mean! If you see something wrong with this then you and I are just in different worlds. If you refuse to allow someone to suggest that there has been a misunderstanding and to try in good faith to communicate anew in the hopes of expressing himself more clearly and accurately, then it seems to me that you do not engage with people in good faith and indeed ought to disengage.

You really seem to want to play the role of cop or judge here - that either one person is to blame for a misunderstanding or another person is to blame. Do you think I "blame" you? Do you think I am criticizing you? Is there any point to my saying that this was not my intention and that you are misunderstanding me, as you may just take this as another attack against you? I just do not see it that way. People misunderstand one another all the time. The purpose of saying "you misunderstood me" is not to attack or judge the other person, it is to try to move the conversation towards a better understanding. You seem to want to make me feel bad. I do not know why you do. I cetainly don't ant you to feel bad.

By the way, I have no problem saying that people are people in part because of genetics. To say so in no way suggests that language and culture are not also important. But that is neither here nor there - the issue in the article is ethnicity and I never said that I define ethnic groups genetically. If you believe I did say so I would appreciate you providing the quote. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I am not proud, and never said you were a fool. You must be projecting. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel bad, but I do note that you still fail to take any merit in the criticisms offered, proud or not. You have every right to explain what you mean, but you have not done so. You have not explained away what you have written with any manner of clarity. Instead you have chosen to write different things. I find this counterproductive because your words remain on the talk page, for others to come and "misunderstand". I responded once more on the talk page, and on yours. I'm done. Have a good one.PelleSmith (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

polite POV

very impressive argument on that page. DGG (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

could you please fix...

... this in which you deleted comments I made to dab? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that happened, but I've fixed it. Sincerest of apologies for this mistake.PelleSmith (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not know how these things happen, but it has happened a couple of times when I was making the edit too, so, I guess sometimes they just happen. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that my use of a laptop with a touch pad means the cursor jumps on occasion when I'm not noticing, deleting things I did not mean to delete, and so forth. Anyway glad that you pointed it out. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

List of cults

Pelle, I appreciate your comments and the position you have taken. Though I explained my edit on the respective talk page, I hope you understand that the objective of my edit was to demonstrate that the list is not acceptable and nothing can do that more easily than adding the Catholic Church to the list. It is a ludicrous accusation in my opinion, but the list is about accusations; not a reflection of reality. It is just a bad, meaningless list. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I do understand that, particularly after your explanation, but I think it would be a better demonstration if the sources were adequate. I also appreciate your perspective on this very much. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD procedural objections

I archived your discussion there, so there is no mandate that you must comply. It might be better to start the AfD completely from zero. But a few other people have withdrawn their procedural objections before I was bold and archived the above section, so I think you going ahead and giving a rational for deletion is better, but I don't know. It was a messy situation. You should maybe add a subsection title and imagine that you are the nominator for deletion, then it would be as if starting from scratch. Merzul (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing that before you did it as well since it became clear that no speedy close on procedural grounds was coming anyway. Thanks for taking the initiative.PelleSmith (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... about your last comment on the AfD. I think that's a very serious general problem on many articles. Editors on these controversial topics tend to have very strong feelings either for or against the subject, and they make those opinions very clear in their talk page comments. That's fine, I guess, but it is not fine when people, who bring an outside perspective, are labeled as fringe advocates. That's a well-known tactic, which is quite harmful to the project, so here I find your aggressive tone quite appropriate. I'm not yet 100% sure that this article should be deleted, but you certainly deserved to have made the case for deletion properly. Merzul (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I can tone it down. Do you mean you found my aggressive tone "inappropriate"? Thanks for the message.PelleSmith (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I misread you, now having seen the accusatory insinuation you responded to in my defense on the entry page :). Anyway I toned down my own responses, and I think that's good measure anyway, so thanks for writing something that in misreading it I took a more tactful response :).PelleSmith (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I did mean appropriate... Cla68 used the quotation "Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." somewhere, and I've been thinking that sometimes I'm simply too big of an advocate of moderation... Still, toning down is still probably a very good idea! Cheers, Merzul (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh... well, it is good when people can respectfully disagree. :) I'm reading over your points carefully, but it seems then the real discussion is the talk page discussion. Merzul (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What talk page do you mean? I just want to be clear before I respond to your last comment on the AfD. Thanks!PelleSmith (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The talk page of the AfD. Merzul (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!PelleSmith (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I now added a link there in my response, it may cause an edit conflict for you, sorry, but I think it will be useful to point to that discussion. Merzul (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think you case is stronger without speculations about the motives of Milo. Adding stuff like that only gives people irrelevant issue to respond to, and that will bloat the AfD even further, and it will close with no consensu. The situation is already quite difficult for neutral people to judge, I feel really sorry for the closing admin. Yes, I do think you should argue forcefully, but the closing admin must be able to understand that the list is harmful for the Wiki, and I think anything that distracts from that will not help your case. Merzul (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Dealt with. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, don't let frustration get to you, Your demands for scholarly and policy-based treatment of unpopular perspectives is very important to the Wiki. I especially like your WP:RS/N comments. I'm taking a short break now. Regards, Merzul (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Media

Pelle, can you define what "media" really means. What is acceptable media and what is not? This seems to be a slippery slope and rather difficult to grasp. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a slippery slope usually and certainly not in this case. 1) "The media", which is what we have here and not simply "media" does not refer to scholarship (but for some rare cases perhaps) and 2) when a clear distinction has been made between "academic sources" and "the media" there is no slippery slope, but instead a solid wall.PelleSmith (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your position, but I am focusing strictly on the definition of media. Media is all things: newspaper, magazines, TV, news websites, etc. Is a church website considered media? Yes, I would think it does. I am trying to understand your definition of media and what is reputable media. The definition, whatever it may be that we are using, can be a slippery slope if there some super preferred media versus other published materials. I am not addressing blogs and other personal sources found on the web, but I am specifically seeking a descision on what is and is not reputable in your opinion. For example, there are many sources for Mormonism being a cult (the vast majority, if not all of them, found by Christian churches and their anti-cultists. There are almost as many allegations that the Roman Catholic Church is a cult made by similar groups. I recently added this more in gest to demonstrate the silliness of list on cults. It was deleted because the sources were not reputable. Why are they not reputable? An expert, theologians from various Christians groups, labeled the RCC a cult. Exactly how are they not reputable? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What?

Do you think that I'm Milo?! I couldn't write all that legalese stuff. S/he must be a lawyer or something. Chee Chahko (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking to you any more. You're too paranoid for me. Chee Chahko (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not paranoid Chee, and I really don't care about "routing out socks" like some people do around here. However, I found your pointy nonsense infuriating, and when you asked me to look into the page history what I saw was rather astounding. I'm not the only one who thinks you're Cairoi, Will Beback, who was actually around the talk page in those days, beat me to it.PelleSmith (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

PelleSmith:

I don't like socks. I find it disconcerting to think I'm addressing different people and then find out that they are all the same person. And the other, more severe problems that happen when they're used improperly. That said, I don't believe any infraction of Wikipedia rules has occurred. There has been no overlap in editing between the accounts, so the socks aren't being used to distort consensus. None of the previous accounts were blocked, so the new accounts haven't been used to circumvent a block. If Cairoi were to return and vote in the AfD then that would be grounds for action. Until something like that happens there is nothing to be done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page posting

Hi,

I would prefer (though not enough to edit) if you threaded your posts a bit more conventionally - i.e. posting below the most recent reply. I appreciate that you are replying to specific editors, but it's confusing - you may want to consider instead leading your posts with a specific editor's name.

Also, I would like to gently nudge you to slightly more civil a tone - it's hardly offensive, but on a page with this degree of acrimony it may be more useful to focus heavily on the argument and less on the contributor (i.e. less "your argument" more "I see the argument as flawed because..."). Agree or ignore as you like but I'd rather the page not get locked because people get hot-headed.

Again, agree or ignore on both points but I think they might be helpful in the long run. Thanks, WLU (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully not ...

You say "altogether may a preferable solution"... I hope this is due to real life reasons, that's totally respected and I wish you all the best and fully support a decision to focus more on things outside the Wiki, but I hope you're not leaving out of frustration with something on the Wiki.

For whatever reason, I wish you all the best, and do hope you'll be back. Merzul (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Origin of religion

This seems like the most relevant section of your wizard but its not exact. I just wanted to follow up on your decline to protect Origin of religion. Since the beginning of 2008 there have been a handful of constructive edits on this entry. It has rarely been edited by anyone but User:Muntuwandi in his many may attempts to revert it back to his deleted and non-consensus OR version. My point is simply that protecting the page will not prevent good edits. Those are few and far between even in stable periods, but when Muntuwandi is up to this they never occur in the first place. So if we leave it unprotected then its just a tedious daily routine of reverting him and blocking more socks, while the page never changes for the good. In fact we only increase the possibility that Wikipedia's various readers don't get the consensus version when the look this subject up. Why not just protect it for a few weeks. He will get bored and go away and its no loss to us.PelleSmith (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please specify the section of the protection policy that applies. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My perspective is that the page is not experiencing edit warring, actually, or to the extent that it is, protection is not a proportionate response. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I'll watch the page and try to ensure that there is no further disruption. Judging from the way that Muntuwandi has created several new accounts (and even used one of them to talk in the third person about how the block was unfair at WP:ANI) I don't think that a temporary protection will put him off. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ResearchEditor...

is deleting some comment in the newly created page (for example he deleted my comment that "Loftus is quite a skeptic"). Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea after all to follow the advise given to us in the Help page: to move the whole thing to a project page? —Cesar Tort 03:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

re Please get up to speed

Rather rude wasn't it? Anyhow, I'm up to speed quite nicely thank you. Just relax mate. It's not a drama. The article/s can be cleaned up and if just one comes out of it that's fine by me. A merge of some material is definitely needed. It's late here and I'm off to bed soon. I do intend doing some work on this topic and a wider group of administrators needs to look at the whole situation.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Er the comment in your edit summary "i suggest you look into the history of this before someone thinks you are also his sock" Was that necessary? I'm not reverting you. It is you who are reverting me. Oh dear! I hope someone doesn't think you are a sock. Now see how that looks? Like I said above. Just relax, the article history is going nowhere and other admins will be looking into it tomorrow.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sakes. Give it a rest. Want to make yourself useful? Check out Development of religion and revert back prior to when Muntuwandi made his edits. Those splits don't agrre with statements in edit summarys. I'm busy gathering material for ArbCom.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I'll ArbCom it tomorrow. Stop fretting about it. It will all get sorted out eventually.--Sting Buzz Me... 13:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee thanks Sting, that makes it all better. I'm still unsure what on earth you are bringing to Arbcom. Have a blast.PelleSmith (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of religion

G'day PelleSmith, I read your reply over at Grey Knights talk page. I'm sorry if I've caused any undue stress. I agree however with your intention to step back from all this. I see you do great work on wikipedia [2] so your efforts would certainly be appreciated on several other articles. You have done a lot of work with Islam in the United States I see. Religion must be an interest of yours as it is mine. The WP:GHBH comments did probably hurt, but I'm sorry the history with this group of articles needs looking into in my opinion. I feel I have a legitimate concern. It's hard though, like when do you accuse a sock of being a sock? Your involvement with the group of articles goes back a long way and even had involvement in the AfD I see, so stepping back from it is probably a good idea. Anyhow, enjoy your break from wikipedia. I take them myself when other matters require my attention. Cheers,--Sting Buzz Me... 00:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

SRA

Now that we have back another pusher in talk page, I can only hope you will continue to be with us... Cesar Tort 01:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

it's ok

Don't worry about Muntuwandi's sock army, that's being taken care of. This is something the admin-cloud is actually good at. Do feel free to return and fiddle with articles that aren't directly connected to the topic, resting assured that the burden of hunting down block-evading socks doesn't lie with you, this is something Wikipedia is become very good at handling (or it wouldn't be around today). --dab (𒁳) 11:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Religion

Would it be possible for people working on this article to provide descriptive edit summaries? Just doesn't seem to be much of it happening? Also starting to smell like fish again.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and edits being marked as minor when they are anything but.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to provide editing summaries in reverting clear socks. No offense, but are you going start slinging around accusations again? I note that you have done nothing to improve this entry. Now that Muntuwandi returned to revert to his version once again and was reverted once again you show up to start whining about fishy smells. FYI, he has used his own talk page and has said nothing about anyone else pretending to be him so these socks are clearly Muntuwandi and no one else. I took offense the first time you started making accusations and will take offense once again. Unless you are interested in improving the page I suggest you take a step back and think twice about just smearing people with these insinuations. There is nothing fishy about a stubborn and blocked editor using socks to make his point. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and reverting the same sockmaster over and over and over again who does nothing but show up and wholesale revert to his favorite version of the page, does become "minor."PelleSmith (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits were not marked as reverts. Once again could you please use edit summarys to explain what it is you are doing.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again you can do something other than just sitting there on your high horse handing out advice to editors acting in good faith some of whom you previously smeared with all kinds of unfounded insinuations without so much as an apology. Once again I suggest you step back and think about YOUR own editing/commentary first. Once again I will suggest finding something productive to do, on this entry or another, instead of this nonsense. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I'll gladly use edit summaries for reverting sock vandalism if its that big of a deal to you, but I'm not gonna sit through another round of your "fishy" insinuations. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you've come to your senses and agreed to use edit summaries as they are meant to be used. Stop messing around with your fishy behaviour on that article. You should be banned from working on it with your suspect history there. Might be a good idea to stick with the SRA article. Same sort of crap going on there I see. You're not happy unless there's a big drama involved with the article you happen to be working on. Funny that? Sniff sniff, smell the fish?--Sting Buzz Me... 11:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked you on your own talk page to strike personal attacks, and I'll ask you here as well. The the entries are not that similar btw. In the origin entry one editor who clearly had good intentions refused to take any criticism of any of his edits and refused to abide by policies like WP:V, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Instead of finding good sources, allowing some edits of his work that removed OR and SYNTH, he simply tried reverting to his versions. At some point down the road he had amassed a vastly different version containing all of his "work" and at that point he simply kept on reverting back to that version wholesale. A variety of editors were involved in this, not just Dab and myself. Many tried working with him, suggesting which parts of his essay could work and which might have to be edited or removed -- no such suggestions were acceptable to Muntuwandi. His version of the entry was deleted quite easily at AfD, and upheld in DRV. After that he simply tried reinstating it (wholesale) over and over and over again. There may be valuable information in his version, and anyone who wishes to sort through it should dig this information out and add it to the current entry. In fact that's what I thought you were intending to do, but instead you've just resorted to accusing people of "fishy" behavior. In the other entry (Satanic ritual abuse) a notably "fringe" POV is being pushed, predominantly by one editor, but also by a couple of others. In that entry the problems are not verifiability or original research, but UNDUE. It is a heated and extensive discussion involving several editors--but it is a discussion about content and entry organization and not about "fishy smells" or "freshman" behavior. To suggest I started a fire at the entry is completely ridiculous. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)