User talk:Zen-master/archive1

Your Ban It's unfortunate that I cannot edit your talk page directly. I'm not sure you're paying any attention to Wikipedia right now or whether you'd even think of looking through an archive of your talk page, but just in case...

There's been some discussion of the circumstances surrounding your disciplinary procedures at the village pump. It might help you to understand better what happened to you. I've joined with a fairly substantial group of editors to look into this issue and find out if anything can be done about the bigger problem. One of the alleged coconspirators, Tom Harrison, alerted me to your situation because he thought I might be a sock-puppet of you. I guess we have a lot in common. Anyway,. I quickly saw the similarities between your situation and the broader situation that's being discussed at the village pump and hoped to alert you to what's going on. I'll try to look out for you in February when you return — and I hope you will return. Best wishes, --Cplot 07:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Election irregularities

Thank you for your anti-vandalism of the 2004 Election Irregularities issue. (not sure if this is the correct forum for this). -- RyanFreisling

random suggestion, consensus is always easier in small groups than large. Want to discuss the article? FT2 02:40, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

It should be a hand. Someone is vandalizing the picture. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Zen - being new, I'm not certain whether or not I should be posting this. However, I'm going to fall back on the "I didn't know" excuse. I appreciate your arguments on the issue of the 2004 election controversy article. I agree also that I find the article remarkably unbiased, given the subject matter. This has been a great forum for me as I maintain a blog that simply tracks mainstream media press coverage on this issue. I reference Wikipedia frequently on my blog, as it provides me with great additive information. Just wanted to say that. RenaRF 17:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

"electronic voting machines are actually not the root of the controversy, please stop saying that. They are just one part of the controversy from exit poll data disrepancies to registration percentage vs results. There are even plenty of non-electronic voting machines utilized in areas with suspicious results" - ZenMaster

Sorry if you got the impression I was saying that. I didnt think I was.

Quick summary where Im at: The underlying concern of individuals (those who feel there is an issue) is something like "Did the election results match the voting intentions of those who sought to vote?" The issue of the article is then "Show the evidence pertaioning to this". I haven't myself emphasised voting machines, although I've listed evidence related to them. My original write of the article showed this perspective. However there seems to be a consensus that voting machines are a big part of it. Every kind of evidence deserves its place. If I've excluded other kinds, then I take that back, it wasn't intentional.

By the way do you and maybe a couple of others working on this article want to meet on say wiki IRC, to discuss it, so we can try and mutually agree a consensus on its progress? FT2 00:15, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

If you continue to revert the article in an attempt to re-introduce unverifiable data, you will be held responsible for that data. If you can come up with a good source for it, you can replace it. The burden is on you. -- Netoholic @ 06:36, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

:Stop now. -- Netoholic @ 07:13, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Zen-master, I see you posted to my user talk page that you want help finding the NPOV stuff in the election irregularities article. You also said that if I'd look through the history I'd find that claims that changes to make the article less POVy were reverted were false. As a matter of fact, I have looked at the history and your claims are false. The page is controlled by an organized group of very biased people who go in and resist every change to try to make it even slightly neutral and encyclopedic in nature. Various people say they welcome comments but then completely ignore them and insult the intelligence of people who disagree with them. Specifically, User:Kevin baas should completely be taken off the article as a ringleader of obvious over the top political activism, and many others need to take a step back and really think if this can in any way be considered an objective description of the issue. DreamGuy 13:17, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Help request

Biblical inconsistencies is currently a messy list. Could you help tidy it up (it is huge)?

It will probably need to be cut into sections (e.g. by part of bible) and each section moved to a new page.CheeseDreams 00:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was more wanting help with readability and NPOV issues, rather than content. CheeseDreams 01:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That new section is a completely personal attack on your part, and I ask that you remove it in the interest of cooperation. Flaming me does not make any difference to the validity of your pet article. -- Netoholic @ 17:39, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Sorry, edit clash on the VfD oage, hope I didnt screw up anything you did when I fixed it, I know the text's OK. FT2 06:33, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting

I did some calculations and found something interesting. Check out the last para in [this section]. Kevin Baas | talk 01:25, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

IRC when around :) FT2 23:13, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

---

I added a link in which Lynch argues that the Hubbert model is totally and completely wrong. Roadrunner 03:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

The reason Hubbert's peak didn't happen was because of the input data, not because of the model,

That's a controversial point. Campbell argues this, but there isn't a consensus in the industry that this is the case.

I believe you may be missing the point. No one is disputing the overall hubbert model (the article of Lynch's you cited only takes issue with Hubbert's belief the model would look like a bell curve, it doesn't have to.

Actually Lynch does. He disputes the entire concept of peak oil.

The article is titled "Hubbert peak" not "hubbert curve" or "hubbert model" for this reason I believe. One main point of hubbert's model is that oil prediction will peak (again "peak" is the title of the article). Lynch is not arguing there will be no peak (oil is finite), just that the peak will be delayed.

Actually, he does believe that the peak is not due to the finite nature of oil. His belief is that oil production is going to be limited by economic effects and limits due to impact on the environment (i.e. greenhouse gases) long before the world physically runs out of oil. (Which is what he said when someone asked him about this.)

So be careful when you claim Hubbert's model is worthless because some might construe you as saying there will be no oil peak at all, which I believe Lynch would agree is very false.

In talking about what Lynch believes, I think I have the advantage that I've actually heard him speak. Also I should point out that I was once employed by a major petroleum corporation to program software for petroleum exploration (which is where I heard Lynch talk). Roadrunner 04:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I heard him speak in 1999 in Austin. Also, I think the burden of proof is to find something from Lynch in 2004 that argues that he has changed his mind. Also, politicians say a lot of stupid things about oil. As far as consensus, the USGS WPA Surveys, the IEA surveys are pretty much the closest thing that you have to consensus and they argue for a peak well after 2050 to 2060. Roadrunner 04:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--Zen Master 04:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since you asked. Here is a presentation that Lynch gave at the Society of Petroleum Engineers in September 2004

http://www.spe.org/specma/binary/files/2980156ATCE04Lynch.pdf

Here is another link

http://www.webcasting.com/houston/

The point of this is that the idea of a peak oil curve is *NOT* a settled issue in the industry. Roadrunner 04:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner 04:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

1) Oil reserve estimates don't change that quickly. In the 9/2004 presentation which I referenced, Lynch specifically talks about the Saudi situation.

2) China and India growth has been factored into the demand estimates that ExxonMobil makes.

3) You are only seeing half of the debate, and not noticing that there is another side. One point that Lynch makes is that the chicken littles of the world are louder, but that doesn't mean that they are the consensus or that they are correct.

The fact that the SPE this debate as the first session in its annual convention suggests that the issue is not settled. There are fairly large numbers of experts in the field who think that technology will save us, and there are those that think that they won't.

I have no objection to stating both sides, but I strongly object to the implication that the idea of peak oil is without controversial or that the matter is settled. It just isn't so.

Roadrunner 04:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problems with GWB intro

Please help.

On the George W. Bush article there is a dispute that you might be interested in. Kevin Baas | talk 18:48, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

---

I still have some problems with the text underneath, but those aren't as serious as the intro. By the way, do you have any objections to renaming the article to "oil peak" rather than Hubbert peak.? Roadrunner 19:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request IRC chat

I am requesting IRC chat on #wikipedia. Kevin Baas | talk 23:13, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Stop the harassment. I'm not asking you again.

You've been trying to provoke me into talking to you both here and on IRC since the original issue started. Stop. I'm not asking you again. I don't have to prove or defend anything and especially not to you.

Any further inflammatory comments you make on my talk page will be promptly deleted. This is your warning. Reene^✎ 23:43, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Note: I responded on Reene's talk page with the following comment, she removed it 3 mins later with the change log description that my comment below was "inflamatory" which, in my opinion, almost proves she is uninterested in cleaning up a glaring error she possibly made in a VfD discussion. Since she had removed my comment from her talk page I will stop posting on her talk page since I am ok if she ignores my counter arguments:

Comments including a deleted one from Reene's user talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Reene&oldid=8194944

[To Reene]

FYI, I just posted the folling on the parent election controversies VfD page in response to a comment you made:

"Also, Reene's claim against the previous vote as being "overwhelming" only if you include invalid user's votes is provable to be incorrect from just looking at the previous VfD page I believe. The vote 2 weeks ago was 61+ valid users that voted to keep, and ~6 voted to delete. 10 to 1 is certainly overwhelming in my opinion. Perhaps Reene is claiming the admin that counted the votes when this article was listed for VfD 2 weeks ago errantly included invalid user's votes? I think the previous VfD page proves her claim wrong, and I request that Reene defend or withdraw it. zen master 23:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

So please defend your claim the previous VfD vote was not overwhelming because of invalid user's votes, or withdraw it. zen master 23:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You've been trying to provoke me into talking to you both here and on IRC since the original issue started. Stop. I'm not asking you again. I don't have to prove or defend anything. This is borderlining on harassment and if you don't stop I'll be asking someone to have a word with you about it. Reene✎ 23:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

[My comment Reene subsequently deleted:]

Asking you to defend or rectify a potential mistake you made in a discussion is not harassment. You certainly do not have to accept my challenge, that is your right, and am ok with that decision of yours. As a courtesy I was just making sure you were aware that I may have found a problem with a point you made in the VfD discussion, that is all. Again, you certainly can choose to ignore my counter point(s). zen master 23:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

zen master 00:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

clint affidat

Someone else posted it on current events, so I copied it to election controversy. Kevin Baas | talk 17:15, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

69.199.71.45 listed it on current events. Bev Harris doesn't like the story. [1] I put some faith in it: he did sign an affidat. What else happened? The story is significant enough alone, as it is indicative of an ethical culture and therefore the probability of fraud, which some people have yet to be disillusioned about it. Kevin Baas | talk 19:44, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the non-conventional oil cleanup. I had something come up and had to drop pruning the article. The end result would have been the same. Thanks Amadeust 01:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

I reworded the listing. Apparently the election controversies article was much more controversial than I imagined. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 07:13, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hubbert peak

Would you be so kind as to discuss the problems on the talk page and stop the revert war? David.Monniaux 19:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as "revert war" goes it was the other party that ignored discussion (and logic), info was "moved" to a new article but then edit quality immediately decreased, seemed suspicious to me. I presented a strong case for moving it back (without deleting the new article) but the revert war ensued without discussion. Since then we've achieved either a semblance of consensus or at least civility on the talk page, one sub section will be removed with relevant info being placed elsewhere, and a new distinction proposal has been made regarding the scope of the two articles in question (the two article currently contain the same redundant info, but each approaches the issue from a different perspective or POV even). zen master 05:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC Netoholic 2

Hi zen master, Netoholic has challenged your verification of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Netoholic 2. Would you be so kind as to post the diffs of your conflict with Netoholic? Thanks. Vacuum c 02:53, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic is threatening deletion of the RfC, while lots of users wish to keep the RfC for reference purposes. I would be very grateful if you could post those diffs. Thanks. Vacuum c 02:00, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi zen master,

I removed the RFC on request by Netoholic because it showed that after 48 hours only one person had tried to resolve this issue. I had removed my own certification and removed my evidence of attempting to resolve because I've been talking to Netoholic directly about the whole issue. Sorry if the comments/contributions were lost, but many (not all) RFCs do get deleted after 48 hours if certification and dispute resolution has not occurred, and they most certainly get deleted if the user being complained about wants it deleted.

If you want to ammend a policy, there are other ways of going about it.

Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The crazy one

Hello, I am the crazy one who came up with the voting system at the bottom of Talk:Hubbert Peak, but I would like you to know, I have created a project page, which will eventually be renamed. That said, I invite you and others to join the project and begin editing the page, I started the page, but there has to be active discussion about the contents There still are the talk pages, to-do list, review board pages, and forums to set up. I invite you to come along and help at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations. Ignore the inuse sign, thats just a greeting. Since your views on this project run against mine, I especially want your input, because then you can tell me when I am doing something stupid.--[[User:Ctrl build|User:Ctrl_build^talk ]] 19:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) <--Have to fix this.

VFD vote

Your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC is based on your misunderstanding. It is not about the RFC against me. Please read the page. -- Netoholic @ 05:07, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Fine, but your comments refer to a different RFC (" I should also note that the RFC was not closed because of a technicality (I provided evidence)..."). I thought you'd want to correct that. -- Netoholic @ 05:11, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Why do I want them deleted? First of all, RFC has one basic provision - the comments must be certified. Failing that, it means only one person has tried to resolve the complaint to with acceptable effort. That means it should have been relegated to user talk pages, not a wide-open RFC. If we allow people to keep their own copies, it means the "RFC" process losses focus. Imagine if a failed RFC is copied to user space, and the discussion continues. It leads only to an open flame war, which the subject may not be aware of, so cannot defend themself. Wikipedia:Requests for comment loses cohesion, since RFCs will just be run on individual user pages.

The biggest reason is that today, the process says they are supposed to be deleted. These copies are being kept in bad faith, in defiance of the RFC process and for no reason other than to harass the subjects of the failed RFCs. They are meant to be damaging attacks, not anything helpful. -- Netoholic @ 05:47, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

subpage

I renamed this page as a subpage in your userspace, as opposed to where it was. You can keep it, or mark it for deletion, just didn't want you to lose it. -- Netoholic @ 05:36, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Yes, i made the table

Then make it 0-border. Regarding size, move the bottom sections to their own subarticles. Obviously, the top half of the article is taken care of w/subarticles. The problem is beneath that. I'm moving "2004 presidential election recounts" to "... controversy, recounts and contests" Kevin Baas^talk 00:54, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Oh, and there should be a lead in the main article to this new subarticle. Kevin Baas^talk 01:08, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Sorry Zen! :) -- RyanFreisling @ 03:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi parliamentary election, 2005

What exactly is this silly edit war about? David.Monniaux 17:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Natalie Portman

please don't accuse me of vandalism/POV if I have attempted neither. I'd be much obliged if you'd read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natalie_Portman - it was an earnest contribution to the article, you doing a better job of it would be more than satisfactory for me. So edit my sentences instead of erasing them please? afterword 03:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Google Inc's deletion

Why do you think that the Google Inc. article should be merged into Google? The company is (and is growing more) indpendent of its main search engine. Google is Google Inc's main product, but they are not one in the same. Also inlcuding both of them together would make the article quite long and difficult to read. I agree that the distinction between them now isn't perfectly clear and that's why there is some overlap, but that doesn't mean we should delete the Google Inc article. Please respond on my talk page. BrokenSegue 23:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

Why do you believe criticism cannot be accompanied by violence? - SimonP 21:21, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE VOTE

• Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - help save Requested Moves, bring friends. I'd hope you vote to keep voting at RM instead of the proposal to run away to cabal at distant talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 18:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iraq election

My opinions on this are at the article's Talk page. Adam 07:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iraq election

I personally feel that what people say is not particularly important. Jacques Chriac's politically expedient praise of the election will have as little effect on the world as Gorbachev's somewhat embittered condemnation of it. The al-Queda quotes are of importance as they are less commentary on the election and more information on why parts of the resistance opposed the elections. - SimonP 07:15, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

What impact or effect will Buchanan's statement have? My guess is very little, but if I am wrong and it has an important effect we can then include it. In answer to your second question: if there are credible individuals that claim the election was faked we should definitely include a thorough examination of the evidence they have presented. It is far better to include all the facts and allow our readers to decide for themselves. Quotes telling our readers what they should think are far less useful. - SimonP 08:13, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Tom

I took thew liberty of moving your comment on Energy development to the talk page. Keep in mind that a poll is simply a poll, and not a binding vote. In that light, of course the poll means nothing if only you, Ultra, and I give our opinions. (We already know where we stand :-) ). A poll is a concise way to hopefully get more opinions. Tom Haws 06:18, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

You can move the poll to the talk page if you think there is a lot more to be said. Generally, I'm sure you have seen that most people try to limit their "in-poll" comments, though I have indeed seen as you have that a few key lengthy ones are sometimes helpful. Do you think we are not ready for a poll? I can easily envision the poll stretching out into long discussions again. Perhaps you could distill the key points of the reason for your vote and put them back. Tom Haws 06:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Excuse you, that was not vandalism. [2] Cburnett 22:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Date linkage

Actually, if you check your Date format preferences, you will see that the date format layout can include moving the year. No, I didn't notice the header-less discussion that veered into date linkage discussion. I would imagine the best place to propose a change would be at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), with a summary of your proposal, with a link to the full proposal, in the Proposals section of the Village Pump (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)), for awareness (if there don't seem to be enuf people joining the discussion--ever since the Pump was sectioned I know I, at least, check the bottoms of the various sections much less often than the bottom of the main VP page--you might also request input using an appropriate mailing list). If someone feels there's a better spot for discussion, or knows if there are any previous discussions of the issue that should be referenced, I'm sure they'll adjust/add accordingly. Also, FWIW, using as strong a word as vandalism in reference to a difference of opinion over how many things should be linked doesn't seem particularly civil or constructive, IMHO. Niteowlneils 23:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS I would agree that duplicate links of stand-alone years are probably unnecessary. Niteowlneils 23:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the word "all" doesn't appear in "Dates should be wikified so that each reader sees the dates formatted according to their own preference.", but I don't see anything that implies there are any exceptions, either. I'm not entirely unsympathetic with your point, as I regularly remove duplicate links during newpages patrol and other housekeeping tasks, as well as FAC copyedits, and used to do so with date links until I came across the formatting/prefs argument. Niteowlneils 23:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• she is a Mossad agent... -Mahomet Ismail Hussein

Image:BigChart.gif

This image isn't used in any article, so I marked it for deletion. LeonWhite 18:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 12 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 13:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

resistance vs insurgency

Hi Zen, I think you're referring to the change I made on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article? The reason is that Iraqi resistance itself moved to Iraqi insurgency, for reasons discussed here... Talk:Iraqi_insurgency/Archive_discussion_of_move. There is a fairly broad agreement that insurgency is the better general term, although of course a few people strongly disagree.

preemptively falsified

"Some supporters of CBS and Dan Rather claim that the documents were preemptively falsified by Republicans"

What does "preemptively falsified" mean? From context, I guess you mean some conspiracy theorists claim the documents were created and planted by Republicans, rather than by Democrats. —wwoods 18:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Saddam

No, it's not. All it means is that he was rapidly rising up the ranks of the Baath Party. How is this POV? Is there any dispute about this? It's a factual statement with not explicit or implicit bias. Chaebol 19:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ack

Just a brief note to express my appreciation for your efforts to inject a note of rational discourse in the Ward Churchill article. That piece requires eternal vigilance to keep it from becoming a forum for sleazy, drive-by rants, as it was a month or so ago. I try to do my bit but I don't always have the stomach to deal with some of the folks there. All the best. -- Viajero 11:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kelly Martin, regardless of the comments of Viajero, I too appreciate the rational discourse if the focus is an attempt to present the information fairly and not allow it to become a defense of Churchill.-----Keetoowah 15:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Killian

Please don't lecture me. I am not doing what you accuse me of. 216.153.214.94 05:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOI and anti-Semitism

What does that have to do with NOI's statements about Jews? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all you'd have to find NOI's criticism of the government of Israel, then you'd have to find a Jewish group which actually responded to them by calling them anti-Semitic. Do you have any any example of that? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect; unless the material is quoted in the context it is original research, specifically the section that says it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article You have provided no evidence that Jewish groups have even noticed the statements made by the NOI about Israeli government policies, much less equated them with anti-Semitism. Nor have you provided any evidence for some sort of "context" for the "bloodsuckers" comment; exactly what context do you imagine there is for I don't know all Jews. If you can introduce me to some good Jews and find a good Jew that is not a bloodsucker, I would be happy to meet them.? And the section in question is about the relationship of the NOI with Jews and Christians, so of course it has a paragraph on Christians too. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all, you have mistaken a claim for a fact. Second, you have not cited it. Third, it has nothing to do with the Nation of Islam, or the relationship between the NOI and Jewish groups. One cannot "balance things" by inserting original research on a different topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since you have provided no evidence of that claim, and since the examples themselves used in the related article have nothing to do with criticism of the government of Israel, it makes no sense at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your arguments are mistaken, against policy, and repetitive. It is your mistaken contention that the lack of the word "allegation" makes an article POV, and Wikipedia specifically does not allow the kind of original research you are advocating. As well, I will no longer respond to arguments which have been made and refuted at least twice before; please come up with something new. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence for ArbCom

Thanks for confirming that my edit to your evidence was in keeping with your intention. When I want to cite the most recent diff like that, I make a trivial edit such as inserting a superfluous blank line. The diff that I want is then no longer the most recent, so there's a stable link to it. The same is true if you want to link to a particular version of an article. If it's the current version, then the only link you can make (at least as far as my technical skill goes) is one that will take the reader to whatever is then the current version. Here again, the solution is to make a trivial edit. The effect of the edit is that the version you want to link to is no longer the current one; hence, a link to it is stable.

I appreciate your chiming in on the Rex arbitration. It's very helpful in dispelling any misimpression that this proceeding is just my personal vendetta. Szyslak has now added some evidence, too. JamesMLane 05:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Old_Right adding "left wing" to dozens of actors/actresses bio articles?

I've seen those other pages but I just simply thought some people might want to be informed where some of these people stand political upon going to their articles, especially with regard to those celebrities who are very outspoken. -- Old Right 06:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The additions are not at all POV. For many celebrities their political views are a significant part of their fame, especially with regard to such celebrities as Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. -- Old Right 06:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could place the left-wing phrase in different paragraphs of these articles. Hey, I'm genuinely not being POV, just trying to be encyclopedic. I thought that's what Wikipedia is all about. -- Old Right 07:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism

Thank you, zen master! I appreciate that feedback. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

hey

hey, thanks for the comments in the arbitration case. Yeah, I am a "hothead." :) RJII 22:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hydrogen fuel

I didn't even notice the page for the hydrogen economy. Therefore I agree with you that it would probably make more sense for you go ahead and do a redirect of the hydrogen fuel page to the hydrogen economy page.

I may at some point then expand a little bit about renewable energies and hydrogen fuel on the economy page since I think it is important for folks to have a better grasp at issues related to hydrogen production. People, especially some environmentalists, like to tote hydrogen as the panacea for all the world's energy problems, however, they either ignore the fact that it takes an extreamly energy-intensive process to separate hydrogen or they may overstate the abilities of known renewables to produce hydrogen on a large scale. Now I am not saying that producing hydrogen using renewables is impossible, I just think that people should be aware that producing significant amounts of it using renewables, and doing this on a scale could make a real dent in the country's consumption of oil for example is by many experts considered impractical. Wikiliki 03:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)Wikiliki

A question

Just out of interest, what do you reakon is going to happen after the oil peak?. G-Man 20:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iraq

It was the reference to socialist organisations in the linked page that motivated my edit - and you're right there are some non-socialist opponents but the organised groups are mainly socialist-backed. PMA 04:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response?

Just in case you missed this question from April 10.

If the new page was Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report would the other page titles be OK?--Cberlet 14:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The list of proposed page titles at: Talk:Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks

Geothermal as renewable/depletable

I made some changes due to your critique. Ultramarine 20:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why do you consider iraq election protesters to be "idiots" exactly? - reply

Well, what are they protesting exactly? The US? The elections? The US "orchestrating" elections? (just like we did in Germany, France, Japan, Korea, ...) Who would they rather trust with that job anyway, the Saudis? The Iranians? Or perhaps the UN, given the brilliant job it has always done in Iraq and elsewhere? (like Darfur, Congo, Rwanda, ...) Or is it the fact of the elections? And why? Perhaps because it would show exactly how little support the extremists they're secretly rooting for, both Sunni and Shia, really have? If there is anything to protest here, it is the fact that the terrorist insurgency has made normal political campaigning pretty difficult - well, protest the terrorists then - "ballots not bombs" "no to terror, yes to democracy" "zarqawi, let iraqis vote in peace" - I didn't see any slogans like that, did you? The election itself went off admirably well, I don't think there's any serious charges of irregularities. ObsidianOrder 22:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You say "after Germany surrendered the allies lost 0 troops", is not true, nice historical amnesia though ;) A year into the occupation, the insurgency and the "re-nazification" as I believe it was called were very serious concerns, the NY Times even called it a "morass" or words to that effect ("quagmire" not having been invented yet). And yes we were losing troops, but not that many since the Germans were rather more thoroughly defeated. Regarding your election math... nobody really knows the true percentage of ethnic/religious groups in Iraq. It is commonly thought that the ratio is Shia/Sunni/Kurds 65/15/15, but 55/10/25 is certainly possible (and a few percent Chaldeans, Assyrian Christians and others). Second, some areas with a mixed population did not vote due to successful intimidation, lowering the Shia percentage. Third, not all Shia voted for the UIA, the Iraqi List did well in some Shia areas. So, as a scenario to try, suppose 60% of Shia, 10% of Sunnis and 90% of Kurds voted, and the Shia vote split 75%/25% UIA/Iraqi List... a very simplified model, but you see how it can work, it already produces results close to the real ones. Also remember that the partial-seat votes are reallocated in a way that favors the smaller parties. This doesn't matter though, since the important stuff requires 2/3 majority, not 1/2. It wouldn't make any sense to fudge the results, really. ObsidianOrder 01:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"the Iraqi elections would at least seem more valid without an occupying force overseeing the situation" - I disagree vehemently. You have to look at the intentions and "trajectory". We may be an occupying force, but we are working pretty hard to build up a strong independent Iraq that can stand on its own. Sadr's militia was also an occupying force in Najaf and Karbala, and the various native and foreign insurgent groups were an occupying force in Fallujah while it lasted. Neither has absolutely any interest in holding elections, and both were really brutal towards the locals. If they held elections (as a fig leaf, probably just in their own area of control) those elections would be about as fair as the ones in Zimbabwe (i.e. not at all). A sufficiently powerful Iraqi force which is loyal to the idea of a democratic and free Iraq and which can counter them doesn't exist yet (although it is coming along nicely) so we have to fill in. Our premature pullout will result in the following most likely scenario: a few ING/New Army units hold portions of Baghdad, the Mahdi army and Badr militia duke it out in the south (Najaf/Karbala/Basra), the Mahdi Army and Sunni tribes duke it out in Baghdad, Sunni tribal warlords and Al-Qaeda groups control patches of the Sunni triangle, and Kurdish militia and Sunni groups duke it out in Mosul and Kirkuk. The neighbours are not exactly idle either: Turkey sends troops to "defend itself" against the Kurds, Syria sends troops to "help" the Sunnis and Iran sends in troops to "help" the Mahdi Army in the south. A bloodbath worse than Somalia results. Would you really like to see that? If you think if we pulled out prematurely the violence would magically stop and fair elections would be held under the eye of a few thousand UN troops, you're dreaming. A US occupation (which is not all roses) is nonetheless an improvement to many so-called governments, and of course what we're trying to do makes all the difference. ObsidianOrder 02:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) P.S. yes it's from DS9.

"banned weapons" - WP is not banned, it is an effective incendiary and obscurant [3].

"100,000+" - Lancet study, I assume? first, this is not the claimed number of deaths directly caused by US troops, and certainly not the number that US troops can be held responsible for. second, it is not a count of civilian deaths, since all military and ununiformed combatant deaths would be included. third, you'll permit me to doubt their analysis of the numbers. obviously, they do not have enough data for a workable estimate (between 8000 and 192000, yeah right). even if you accept the after-war data in the study as gospel and extrapolate from it, looking at violent deaths only, you get 25000-28000 combatants (in uniform or not) killed by US troops, 5000 civilians killed by US troops, 7000 killed by insurgents, and 25000 killed in criminal violence (a lot of which may be politically motivated as well). this is in line with (although on the upper end of) most other studies. "equivalent to the brutality"? well, you don't measure it that way, the intent matters, both in law and in moral judgement. nonetheless I'd say that it is quite likely we have killed substantially fewer people who didn't deserve it than the insurgents have. (also remember that the Russians managed to kill ~25000 civilians just in the siege of Grozny, a city the size of Fallujah; the usual ratio in war is 3-5 civilians killed for every combatant, whereas our ratio is 5-10 to 1 the other way).

"in Iraq for the oil"? hmm, you tell me, how many years of oil production will repay our costs? even if we could somehow skim that money, which by the way is going to pay the salaries of everyone working for the iraqi government now? assume a reasonable profit margin. if that is what we wanted, I fail to see why we couldn't simply buy it from Saddam, just like we buy it from the Saudis. there is every indication he would have been willing to deal.

"people have a right to protest"? of course, and I have a right to call them idiots.

regarding the comparison with Germany... read Werewolf! The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement 1944-1946. There was a fair guerilla war going for a while, I don't have a total number of casualties but it was roughly 40 in the first couple of months. Bear in mind the Germans simply didn't have many able-bodied men left, and also that the US on numerous occasions completely levelled with artillery any towns which housed enemy troops. Also, 5.7 million civilians died in Germany after the surrender from a combination of crime, disease, starvation and exposure (basically a total breakdown of society), which thankfully did not happen in Iraq due to our outstanding efforts. The tone in the papers from that time seems familiar [4]. While there are similarities, there are also huge differences: the Nazis prepared a guerilla resistance hastily, whereas it appears that this was the primary Iraqi war plan [5], laid down in advance, complete with meticulous dispersal of weapons caches and evacuation of funds and top leadership cadres. the Nazis did not have a sanctuary to operate from, while the insurgents have two (Syria and Iran). finally, the charismatic leader that the Nazis fought for, and in some sense the idea (of the master race), were dead, while the islamist fundamentalist idea appears alive and well despite the massive defeats they have suffered. ObsidianOrder 04:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

let me throw my two cents in - i don't know any of the specifics behind said protests or the criticisms of them, but i can think of two relevant philosophical concepts: 1. "just powers are derived from the consent of the governed" (pro-democracy), 2. self-sovierngty & self-determination: the people of a soviergn nation have the right to erect whatever form of government they chose, whether they prefer democracy or theocracy, or what have you. this is not just there as a theory of human rights, but as a practical consideration - what is feasible and what is not, from a historical, economic, and cultural perspective. for instance, if their economy is based on a single resource (such as oil), it will have a strong tendency to centralize, which will tend to lead to an oligarchy, regardless of what measures are in place, short of a strong and constant military presence. things like that will have a strong pull on the evolution of a civilization, including its form of government. you can't just stop the wheel and turn it the other way with brute force. You've got to examine the system and discover it's dynamics, and work with those dynamics to make change. whoa, this point got kinda long. point was: right of self-sovierngty & self-determination Kevin Baas^talk 01:50, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Ward Churchill / Fred Bauder

While discussing Ward Churchill recently on his personal talk page, Fred Bauder said this: "However, judging from his appearance I do think he probably has some Native American ancestory".. I am part Native American (Mi'kmaq aka Micmac), most certainly more so than Mr. Churchill and I don't like to be judged by my appearance. I think Bauder's comments are offensive racial stereotyping. I think he ought to apologize and have basically said as much on his talk page. What do you think? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

raq election quoting

You misjudge my intentions if you read them "criticisms require quotations". The issue is more about using excerpts of quotes directly, specifically the term "orchestrating". That term is a pretty strong term with negative connotations and if it is to be used in place of a word like "administer" with neutral connotations, then it should be clear that the line is from a quote taken from a source directly. Similarly, if a claim was made from officials that the election was "a grand experiment in democracy" or something along those lines, they would need to be quoted as well. --Bletch 13:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Killian documents

Please be advised, I intend to create a sub-page off my user page and therein document your continued, non-discussed reverts of my good-faith edits here - especially those where you label me "POV". When the page is up, I will supply a link to you. If and when I feel that I have enough proof, if you have not desisted from your unilateral non-dialoged reverts, I will seek assistance from various Admins regarding you. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi...I don't think my edits really justified reversion, but see the talk page and please engage in discussion over it. My version is more factually based and in better chronological order than the previous, as well as making the major contribution of removing POV conspiracy theory from the opening paragraph without denying that Democrats have a valid view of the issues raised by the (probably fake) memos. Please reconsider your revert. Kaisershatner 20:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Sorry, misplaced my comment in the wrong section. Kaisershatner 20:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words (I reposted to the killian talk page because I had replied to you there). Let's try to focus on objective facts rather than our differing interpretations of the facts, we'll make more progress that way. Kaisershatner 21:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

say what?

Howdy, just a question about your comment editing iTunes. I'm not disputing the sentence, I think it's fine, but where do you see that Linux's market share is higher than Mac's? I've read a lot of articles stating that Linux will overtake Apple for 2nd OS by market share by the end of the year, but I haven't seen any numbers indicating that this has happened yet. Do you have a source for that? A Wired article from last August has Apple still at No. 2. If you have newer information I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no problem with the line staying in the article, I was just surprised by the edit summary. I've heard so much buzz about how Linux is supposed to overtake Apple, and I was worried that it had happened and I had somehow missed the whole thing. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Make your case on the talk page. I imagine that some compromise can be reached there first that can accomodate both parties. Be careful with the article content though, as I will have to enforce the WP:3RR if people keep editing the article without discussion. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting without explaining why

I note others have already told you not to unilaterally revert their work. I don't really care if you do or not but don't expect to win me over with your lack of persuasion! I agree with those who have expressed concerns about the integrity of an article that misses the obvious:

• Ward Churchill is a rich white guy of privilege
• He made some incredibly hateful remarks about the victims of 9/11, including the cleaners, the bankers, the taxi drivers, the fire fighters who were murdered that day.
• He is a plagiarist.

Any attempt to cleanse the article of these undisputed facts will be contested. Johnnyio 21:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WC article

Hi, FWIW: by the similarity of the edits to Ward Churchill this evening, it looks like Johnnyvio is a sockpuppet of Carlshooters. I reverted the latter a number of times this evening, and it looks like you are having to do the same to him under his new user name. Good luck with it. I am off until tomorrow. -- Viajero 21:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Johnnyio

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Carlshooters

-- Viajero 21:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Churchill changes

Hi, I replied at Talk:Ward Churchill. I do think the claim that he's not Native American needs a mention in the second paragraph, because it was very part of the follow-on controversies that came after the initial essay controversy, and it's definitely in the context of Churchill's opponents wishing to discredit him, tying in closely with allegations of academic fraud. So it does really need a mention there (in the second paragraph) to put it in its proper contenxt, I think. -- Curps 22:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Curps, for proving my point. The issue about WC's ethnicity is relavant to American Indian people but it is NOT relavant to you. You make it clear in this post that you simply believe that Indian people are complaining about WC fake Indian pose because they are "opponents wishing to discredit him." You have made it very clear that you have a deep and complete bias. You completely ignore that fact that American Indian people have been complaining about WC's fake Indian fraud for 30 years.-----Keetoowah 22:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article says Churchill is co-chair of American Indian Movement of Colorado. This suggests that some Native Americans, at least, do accept his claims. I don't think any one person, including yourself, represents American Indian or Native American viewpoints on Churchill; I'm doubt there is any single viewpoint. The controversy over his ethnic origin, like the controversy over academic fraud and plagiarism, is one of the controversies that surfaced in the wake of the large publicity over the essay, that's all. That's the context it ought to be presented in, describing the way the controversies unfolded. Please stop trying to find bias everywhere... everyone involved in this article seems to have some sort of siege mentality, looking for enemies everwhere. -- Curps 22:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I added a bit of detail about what the essay controversy was about, and maybe addressed your redundancy issue. See Ward Churchill/Temp, I'll edit there instead of changing the main article. -- Curps 22:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: your comments on my talk page. I think saying "those killed weren't innocent victims" is a pretty fair one-line summary of what he said, not at all out of context or misleading, and summarizes why some took exception to his remarks. Yes, he does go into detail about why he thinks they weren't innocent victims; on the other hand, he uses fairly inflammatory language in doing so, which some others would wish to add to the intro. Throwing both of those things into the intro would be a bit much... really the entire rest of the article is about this. -- Curps 23:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi elections

Hi, I read through the talk page and found the general tenor deeply troubling, confirming many of the things you said to me. The article as it now stands, gives no impression that the elections were at any way controversial, the comment by Ritter notwithstanding. Also, I found the intro particularly weak, and, as you will see, I just rewrote the opening paragraphs to at least present urgently-needed context. But the larger problems remain. All the best. -- Viajero 13:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

iTunes

I just wanted to let you know about my removal of iTunes compatibility from iTunes. Since I could not get a reply from you, I have to assume that you agree with me or you leave the issue to me. Please just make your position clear at the talkpage. I am still happy to debate on the issue. -- Taku 20:40, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Japanese textbook demonstrations in China

Exactly the right direction - that may be better, though whitewashing is the central issue. I dont know exactly what it should be called. See talk page. -SV|t|add

Agreed and I support your title - but gov should be lowercase, and Japanese should just be Japan. You move it or should I? -SV|t|add 21:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. Prefer proper and awkward than improper and elegant. May change my view later in the day, though. -SV|t|add 21:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Killian documents

Kaisershatner has a talk: page full of issues with the version you prefer; you haven't dealt with any of them that I can tell. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I'd appreciate a comment on the talk page about my proposed (large) change. Since you and JamesMLane have been the most active debaters w/r/t my changes in general, I wanted your input before considering a large edit. I'll post this at Zen's too, but I think my proposal in no way affects the POV of the article; I just want to move the details of the typographic arguments off the page while keeping a summary of same with a pointer to (See: Typographical arguments...etc). I think it will make the article much more readable, and again, without changing the POV. Kaisershatner 14:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

POV?

I assume POV means point of view which means biased.

My suggested draft is designed to include the main facts, which I guess do make him look more controversial than the average tweed wearing prof. I have been most honest about my bias, which is very strongly in his favor on the question of defending his right to say practically anything, except for racist or sexist statements. That's the whole point of tenure and that's important. But he also faces charges that go beyond his views and that should be acknowledged as well. As should th counter view (which I also suspect is true) that he's being investigated about the plagiarism etc. only because of his controversial views. The issue isn't whether the introduction should be +ve or -ve it's that the most pertinent information should be summarized at the start of what is a very long article. I don't have time to edit that down and suspect others would resist such a move. The question I have I guess is why do you want the material that makes him interesting and topical removed? No one has answered that question so far. TonyMarvin 08:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you like the slimline version? I prefer as it was but I took your advice about DeLay and thought it not a bad model. TonyMarvin 05:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

W.C. redux

Hi, I have removed most of TonyMarvin a.k.a. AcademicIntegrity's ill-informed changes to the Ward Churchill draft. What do you think of the intro now? If you want to add anything, go ahead, but if it creeps back up to three paragraphs, then it is probably too long. -- Viajero 13:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The way that you Viajero and zenMaster talk to each other it is clear that you both have an agenda and you are going to ignore and crush anyone that disagrees with you. This is an example of what is wrong with Wikipedia. You folks (Viajero and zenMaster) are poster children for the short-comings of Wikipedia. Neither one of you give a flying flip what those around you think, you talk among yourself and you make only the changes that you want to see. The style of both of you is not concensus, it is dominance.-----Keetoowah 20:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please be careful when you tweak HTML codes; I found your changes made things worse. Browsers can all handle the <b> tag; I wouldn't worry about that kind of thing. -- Viajero 15:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Completely fixed the impossibly tiny font problems for me, what browser are you using? I am using Firefox on Linux. What is broken for you? 15:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ditto, Firefox under Linux. I didn't study the problem closely but it looked like </sup> tags got deleted. -- Viajero 16:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "native american" is to be preferred, I don't know. But at least acknowledge Chip's comment on the Talk page and say you disagree with him, otherwise it looks like you aren't paying attention to the discussion there.-- Viajero 16:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make wholesale deletions of my work on the WC article without explaining yourself. If you persist I will ask for the article to be protected again which would be disappointing I think. TonyMarvin 02:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should explain the reasons for your changes, as I repeatedly have. Referring to past discussions and other articles does not justify leaving factually incorrect information in the article. Nor does it justify editing out highly relevant material. Very disappointing. TonyMarvin 02:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am happy with it as it is but am willing to discuss, of course. That was the whole reason I was distressed by what you were doing which seemed most counter-productive. It took me a while to formulate a good summary of his controversial views. I think that should stay and is a much better summary than the Eichmann reference for example. I doubt you'll agree but am hopeful others might. TonyMarvin 05:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"lacks context nor good prose", if being critical of prose best to be careful of one's own. ;-) TonyMarvin 05:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

I agree that TonyMarvin's recent edits appear to have the intention to introduce a strong POV bent into the introduction to the article, which is why I have reverted them. I (along with several other neutral parties) will continue to monitor this article for inappropriate edits from either side of the aisle. Kelly Martin 06:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Greeting from a sock puppet

I don't appreciate your ugly tone in the Invasion of Iraq article. Be calmer and raise your concerns in understandable language. I speak six so try whichever you feel most comfortable in. UDoN't!wAn* 00:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Don't interrupt the major edit though.

"ugly tone"? Ha! You are a confirmed sock puppet making obvious POV vandalism on numerous articles. zen master T 00:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Dbraceyrules

I don't know why House of Blues bothers you, Zen, but I have had a real spat with DreamGuy. I suggest that HouseofBlues immediately starts vandalizing him instead of you. Take care.

User:Dbraceyrules

You are banned from editing my talk page, be advised. Zenupassio 04:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ooops

You've been blocked again for violating the 3 revert rule. ugen64 04:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eh, just kidding. I unblocked you - those edits were vandalism. My mistake. ugen64 04:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AQSH

Sorry for the unintentional interruption. RFM is just to request admin help anyway, which I happen to be. I saw the title and think its clumsy: Alleged links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda is more straightforward, IMHO. SV|t|add 05:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:) SV|t|add 05:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Long term predictions

The WEC scenario did not assume an early peak but that in this particular scenario humans voluntarily would phase out fossil fuels. Of course, an early peak would have a similar effect. The WEC is generally considered a reliable source and this was one of the very few attempts for long term predictions I found. Most organiations do not attempt to forecast longer than at most 2050. The WEC graph is also good since is shows the proportions of energy use since the industrial revolution. Ultramarine 13:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

Do you play chess or blow up frogs?

Because if you play chess I would have thought you would have seen the strategic advantage to letting the other side of the debate make the first non-consensus edit after page protection was lifted.--Cberlet 02:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems that frogs are blowing themselves up, lately. Kevin Baas^{talk: new}

I believe those are actually toads. Kelly Martin 04:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

ok, what does that have to do with anything? Wikipedia shouldn't be about "strategic advantages". And if there is vandalism why do we need a strategic advantage? zen master T 17:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grrr

I am reasonably certain that the "Grrr" was frustration at her own uncooperative fingers, rather than a comment on the article itself. Check out the edit history. Kelly Martin 01:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Grrr

No, grr at myself. I managed to make the edit without a summary because of clumsiness.

I don't agree that "castigated" had wider support. Several editors expressed support, albeit lukewarm, for excoriated. Still, if you feel really strongly about it, you're free to revert to "castigated" and fight over it. Personally, I'm done with the page. It has a good compromise beginning, which while it isn't what anyone wanted is not what anyone (bar the Legion of Sockpuppets) vehemently didn't want. Grace Note 01:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

what was wrong with the 2003 in U.S. Iraq War?

war crimes aside...

move isn't working: it says the form won't submit. So I did a manual move. i made it more specific, adding "2003" & "U.S.": 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. I don't think anyone will confuse this, and it's back to the status quo, with the exception of u.s. being added. now we can discuss terms used to describe the war and moving, and build consensus. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 06:45, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

I made sure there were no forks. and i know there'll be some clean up once whatever was wrong is fixed. The history should be on the U.S. Iraq War 2003 article. What worries me is that I don't know where archive2 went (nor the other archives that were lost when i came here) Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 06:54, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories are easily defined and observable. Please stop moving articles around simply because they disagree with your POV; get consensus, or Request a Move. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Many people assume their POV is "neutral". As for what is "encyclopedic", I simply note that Encarta refers to the Protocols of the Elders of Zions as an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory". Part of WP:NPOV charges Wikipedia editors with noting which views are majority and which are minority. Conspiracy theories fall into the latter group, and can (and should) be characterized as such. In any event, if your viewpoint is correct, and mine is wrong, then I'm sure you can get consensus on it in any number of ways, rather than just trying to force your POV on the articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Rather than having a private conversation about this on our personal Talk: pages, why don't you take this to the releaant article Talk: pages? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "cover your tracks"? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

In what way would that "cover my tracks", who is my "boss", and why would he be "proud"? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

There are much better reasons to do so. What did you mean by "your boss should be proud"? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there is a much better explanation of the edit. What did you mean by "your boss should be proud"? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

You first. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL! I "started it"? I won't be goaded by juvenile taunts and arguments. Think what you like; if you ever want to know the real answer, you'll explain what you meant. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

9/11 Complicity

Hi. I'm curious to hear your take on the problems you're having with the titling on this article. It's a fascinating piece and I am not sure I agree with the way it's being positioned right now. I am, however, late to the discussion. If you have insights or experiences that you'd like to share, I'd be interested in hearing them. BrandonYusufToropov 19:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I was inquiring about. The title you've proposed seems a good deal more balanced to me. However, I'm still not sure what "ground rules" are stopping someone like, say, me, from simply retitling it along the lines you have advocated, to reflect NPOV about the article content, which the current title definitely lacks. Want to play fair and square. A few months back, I changed the Abu Ghraib prison article to include the word "torture" after arguing for it on the talk page and it stuck (last time I checked, anyway, it had stuck). After I made the change, though, I saw that there had in fact been a vote on that very point -- a vote I had missed. Felt like I'd been crossing against the light without realizing it. What feathers would I be ruffling by simply moving the article to the title you have proposed? And what rules, if any, would I need to follow? Pls. advise. BrandonYusufToropov 20:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Aha. Vote in process. Gotch. Thanks for bringing me up to date, I will follow the talk page, Godwilling, and try to spend some edit time on the article. Pls feel free to drop a line if you spot something you think I should be voting on/looking at. Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 20:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what all this nonsense about chess is :) but I wanted you to know I left you a note on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory regarding a possible revision of that first branch. BrandonYusufToropov 18:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Hi zen master, be a bit careful at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory in case you violate 3RR. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory

See my comments on Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory. Kelly Martin 18:04, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi zen master, we should probably paste your query and my reply to Wikipedia talk: Conspiracy theory, but I won't do that without your permission. You asked: "When is a dubious but citable theory not a "conspiracy theory"? Do you acknowledge the existence of the multiple definition ambiguity confusion?" I'm not quite sure what you mean by multipe-definition ambiguity confusion, but regarding the first question: an example of a dubious theory that isn't a conspiracy theory would be the Bush-Blair hypothesis that Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction but moved them before the invasion. There are a few facts that make the hypothesis an interesting one (satellite photos showing movement of equipment to Syria; prior experience of Saddam moving his aircraft to Iran just after the invasion of Kuwait; his 1990 warning to April Glaspie that his enemies would become his friends in the event of any conflict with America) but no evidence, and so it remains a controversial theory. However, it doesn't satisfy the conditions I tried to list in the keep summary: mostly importantly, it isn't a matter of ideology, and it's falsifiable. Regarding the 4,000 Israelis, this was just an example: it doesn't have to be a real-life one. The point is that, like urban myths, conspiracy theories are not amenable to the normal rules of evidence. It's a descriptive term for a well-known phenomenon. As I said on the talk page, the important thing is to include only theories that do fit the definition on pages using that term in the title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:59, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hey there -- maybe someone will delete the two extraneous proposals? What do you think? BrandonYusufToropov 20:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

By editing (not reverting) the project page without apology, in tandem, until it positions the issue in a way that is not biased towards a certain outcome, I think. Let's tweak content and get it right. BTW, perhaps you should reproduce "Shouldn't .... presented?" above on the talk page? It's certainly a fair question.

Shouldn't the person or people bringing a policy change proposal have a say in how their proposal is presented?

BrandonYusufToropov 21:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zen-master. I believe that although the term "conspiracy theory" may be used in a dismissive manner at times, it is generally a neutral term. If an article actually discusses conspiracy theories then I don't believe that a title should be renamed in favor of a lesser known term. In the case of the 9/11 and AIDS articles, they do discuss conspiracy theories and thus it's proper and accurate to use the term. Carbonite | Talk 01:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The term "non-neutral" means that bias is present. On Wikipedia, it also implies that the NPOV policy is violated. This isn't the case for "conspiracy theory". I understand that you do not view this term in a favorable light, but this isn't universal. I believe that it's the most accurate and well-known term and should be used when an article discusses conspiracy theories. Carbonite | Talk 01:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Zen Master. I answered your question in the article talk, but I'll repeat it here so you don't have to hunt for it.

• Conspiracy is a legal concept. If there is a conviction for conspiracy, then it is not a theory. Example: General Motors streetcar conspiracy. GM was convicted, so it was a conspiracy.
• "Conspiracy theory" is anyone's guess as to how several people may have banded together to commit a crime or other negative acitvity, or cover it up. It may be dead-on correct, or pure fantasy, but unless it is proven, it is a theory. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

This reminds me of the fights over definitions of terrorism in Wikipedia (see the mailing list archives). If the page keeps being reverted, perhaps it would be better to try to develop the policy elsewhere, such as in your user namespace until the issue has settled down, and then see if people agree with it rather than having it in the Wikipedia namespace where everyone feels the right to try to get the page to match their own POV before it has really been discussed. Angela. 17:51, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think she may be right, Zen. It's a free-for-all now, and there seems little chance of a productive outcome that actually addresses the problem. BrandonYusufToropov 20:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

There's really not much chance of getting anywhere as long as certain axe-grinders are around. You might as as chill. We're banging our heads against a brick wall of bigotry. Chameleon 22:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

What next

I think we could a) move the discussion to your talk page and then b) independently evaluate whether there might be brand-new articles that need to be written on specific events that are not currently covered in enough depth on WP. I also think there is strength in a tag team approach, so this experience has definitely been useful. What think? 21:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you could e-mail me at yusuf.toropov@gmail.com and we could discuss off-line? BrandonYusufToropov 02:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

tenability

thou, as you see, my position is closer to yours than those whose arguments appear to be a jumble of evey logical fallacy in the book and some that aren't (i think nietzsche said something about people choosing one side, simply because the other side was found to be distasteful - although correlation does not imply correlation, i accept that this may be a contributing factor that i'm unconscious of).... we both can also see that the "conspiracy theory" phrase issue is pretty borderline in terms of consensus. and i think that supports my concern on the 2004 irregularites talk page, from the more abstract standpoint of tenability. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 08:51, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Oh geez, I was realy tired when i wrote this. just ignore it. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:01, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Meanings of conspiracy theory

I believe the other meanings of "conspiracy theory" are purely contextual.Grace Note 08:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

This is certainly convenient for your particular pov (confirmation bias), but it's rather absurd. Certainly the "other" meanings are no more or less contextual "theory of conspiracy". Certainly the more common interpretation is in fact the "other" meaning, after taking all contexts into account. Certainly, in the context in question, the phrase remains quite ambiguous - actually even less so, because the article "9/11 conspiracy theories" does not contain any theories of conspiracy. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:05, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory"

No, my comment was not intended as a vote. Feel free to move it. Mirror Vax 01:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" voting

I agree that it is the status quo. However, it has become apparent to me that some people involved in the discussion beg to differ. Those who I have encoutnered who dispute the status quo being case-by-case basis happen to be, in speech at least, proponents of the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in titles as a general policy. However, they have not yet put the phrase "conspiracy theory" in any articles where the allegations are made by the Bush administration rather than against it, so I may be misunderstanding them. In any case, the point of my addition was to make clear exactly what the status of "case-by-case basis" is, in speech, at least. My hope is that this will resolve any misunderstanding on anyone's part. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 03:36, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

A discussion whose topic is

Conspiracy_theory

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Conspiracy_theory; the following points describe the discussion:

• 6 msgs, 18:44, 8 thru 05:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• 3 participants: Jerzy~t~*; User:Zen-master~t~*; Kevin Baas~t~*.
• general topic(s): Use of that phrase in article titles; definitional terminology.
• implicit reference(s): Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory#Keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is; Jerzy's edit there.

Ward Churchill

Yeah, that section of the article is a bit of a can of worms. I initially only aimed to take out the duplicated quotation - and looking back, I saw that a lot of the explanation for why the article was controversial had apparently been deleted. As you say, it had been moved further down...

However, I came to the article wanting to know why Ward Churchill was notable - I live in the UK, and was completely unaware of the man. When I read the article as it was when I first came upon it, it looked like the only controversial thing about the 9/11 piece was that he likened the victims to Eichmann... when obviously there were several immensely controversial claims in his piece. So I largely restored that paragraph.

I've had another quick clean-up on the latter paragraph - it's now used as a rejoinder to Churchill's claims specifically on the allegation that America was unaware of the effects of Iraqi sanctions in the 1990s. Hopefully, the duplication has been removed. Thanks for pointing out my screw up! - MykReeve T·C 18:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi: I think that your wholesale reversion of User:Morning star's edit was a bit harsh given the amount of useful material that s/he added. Could you not have restored just the specific parts with which you disagreed?--Theo 00:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that a sub-article is inappropriate. This does not diminish the value of the bibliographic data and the details of Churchill's degree that were added as part of the same change. And, yes, I think that you are entirely correct to suggest that User:Morning star should have proposed such a material change on the talk page first. --Theo (Talk) 00:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I need to see behaviour repeated before I suspect trolling. I think I understand your position, however. --Theo (Talk) 09:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that it was a questionable move to refactor the 9/11 essay material without discussing it first on the talk page, but it would have taken you maybe sixty seconds to have restored it without reverting all of his/her other edits. It is not very collegial to revert all of someone's edits when one only disagrees with some. -- Viajero 13:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

My interpretation of User:Morning star's behaviour is that he saw the need to add some details about Churchill and to enhance the bibliography. When he went to do this he encountered the length warning and sought the longest section to spin off without checking the talk page. I do not see any malice in any of this. --Theo (Talk) 19:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Good morning. I do not think that size is a concern. The 32K warning is residual from a time when some browsers had problems with pages larger than that. It is more important that the article brings together all the essential material. More detailed associated articles are often a good way to handle complex subjects but I do not see this as an issue here. References are now considered an essential part of articles (they are a requirement for featured status, for example) so removal to the talk page seems inappropriate. --Theo (Talk) 07:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, Morning star was only concerned about the size of the article because he saw the 32K limit warning. Now he has read the Wikipedia:Article size guidelines his concern has gone. Check out his post on my talk page at 07:12 yesterday. --Theo (Talk) 07:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia vote

You voted once for the policy at Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Despite a 75% support that vote was rejected by the minority. A new vote has been called with a two week limit at Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please take a moment to participate. Thanks. - Tεxτurε 17:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft

Hello. I have read the book. I have just heard the author at the radio a few minutes ago. So, I do not know much more. You can remove my text if you want. --Youssef 17:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I have not read the book which is a novel. Google gave only 25 answers for La morsure du dragon. In the interview on BFM, the author said that China governement did not ban Microsoft because of military deterrence... I do not know much more. By the way, Extremadura (see Linex) had already banned Microsoft. Brasilia and Venezuela administatrations are moving towards Linux (see for example http://slashdot.org). Sorry, I have not much time (I have to study).--Youssef 18:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

PS: I have just wirtten a mail to the author with my edits about the book on Wikipedia. I would be away from Wikipedia for some weeks. So take any decision you think it is good.

By the way, the French article has been expanded by someone who is reading it. --Youssef 12:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Why did you report User:Ultramarine for the 3R violation, I mean when he gets back he is likley to report you for the same:

1. Revision as of 10:45, 22 May 2005
2. Revision as of 09:37, 23 May 2005
3. Revision as of 09:42, 23 May 2005
4. Revision as of 12:02, 23 May 2005
5. Revision as of 12:31, 23 May 2005
6. Revision as of 12:47, 23 May 2005
7. Revision as of 13:17, 23 May 2005
8. Revision as of 13:26, 23 May 2005
9. Revision as of 13:46, 23 May 2005
10. Revision as of 17:26, 23 May 2005
11. Revision as of 23:19, 24 May 2005

Obviously you are within your right to report him adn he was rightly banned for violating it but we are never going ot get this worked out if people cant contribute. I think all of us on the talk page shoudl agree not to edit the introduction until we agree on one on the talk page. Dalf | Talk 08:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Those are partial reverts working towards improving the article, Ultramarine made 5 full reverts within 24 hours which is a no-no. zen master T 14:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 24h over Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism. Why did you let things go so far??? ;((( -- Viajero | Talk 18:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough though you may want to be carful I have seen several people blocked for partial reverts. I think it depends on the admin doing the blocking and how they perciev the spirit in which the edits were made. Either way I would rather we all agree not to touch the introduction (hell you can even leave it in a format that I dont agree with) and work together on the talk page for a neutral version. The problem is that I am beginning to think that User:Benjamin Gatti bealievs that anything that is not vociferously anti-Nuclear power is by its nature POV. Such is his perception that only unreasonable people whould not agree with him. I am more or less at a loss at how to go from here and was hoping to get some more peopls input on the various proposed version when I noticed User:Ultramarine was blocked. I am not sure even he will like my version but .... *sigh*. It just seems things are actually getting worse and not better, all the edits to the intro in the last 48 have begun to make me think that perhaps mot the peope involved don't actually know what nuclear power is. Dalf | Talk 20:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear power

I changed slightly your re-wording of my re-wording of the intro. I think its an ok compromise version but if you could have a look at my comments at the bottom of the talk page Talk:Nuclear_power#Peak_oil and let me know if you disagree strongly so we can work on a further compromise. I think this is pretty minor as its a wording and not a content change but you never know. Dalf | Talk 02:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory

Well, I appreciate your attempt to make Wikipedia more neutral, but I still just don't feel like "conspiracy theory" is POV. If people misread the phrase, then perhaps it is up to us to educate them. Clearly, any negative connotation is due to the large number of conspiracy theories which have been imagined by people over the years. But conspiracy is a clearly defined legal term—it's as acceptable to use as any other crime.

What if, say, 9/11 conspiracy theories was moved to 9/11 (theories about conspiracy)?

If you want to continue this discussion, perhaps we should use a specific example of a theory which you believe is unfairly being called a "conspiracy theory". —Sean κ. + 18:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Flat Earth deals with ancient people's beliefs, so it's not really in the category of conspiracy theories. Though an article relating to the Flat Earth Society on the subject should probably be named "Flat Earth conspiracy theory".

If you were to separate the science from the conspiracy theory, I could see how you could create an article named AIDS and biowarfare. For example, a scientist who claims that he/she has scientific evidence that AIDS was most likely man-made, then that is not a conspiracy theory. In fact, if the same scientist gives scientific proof that it could be formed by splicing two other visuses, it's still not a conspiracy theory. However, as soon as this scientist theorizes about who produced AIDS, it's a conspiracy theory. This distinction is pretty much set in stone in my mind; it has nothing to do with the validity of the theory, but the subject. —Sean κ. + 20:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I assure you that I am not trying to push any propaganda, since I've never once edited an article related to conspiracy theories (other than the vote I gave).

The core issue seems to be over whether "conspiracy theory" is a pejorative phrase. You believe it is, and I don't, and I don't really think you're going to convince me otherwise. Does it have negative connotations? I suppose it does, in the same way "sodomy", "holocaust", "idealist", and "sociopath" all have negative connotations to some people. But I don't think any of these words are pejorative, in the way that "pervert", "evil", "crackpot", and "crazy" are. And really, this is just me and my interpretation of the word. If you want to show most people feel it is a pejorative phrase, perhaps you should take a poll.

I guess that's all I really have to say, since we both agree on everything else: Wikipedia shouldn't be biased, an article's title shouldn't connote a POV about the article, etc. —Sean κ. + 22:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I sympathize with your frustration over this issue, but at the same time I need to point out that Wikipedia's NPOV philosphy is not a immutable natural law but a human construct developed on an empirical basis by many people. No single individual has the keys to NPOV, not even Jimbo. It is something we achieve as a group; it is the result of discussion and concensus-building.

If you have stated your case and failed to convince others, then leave it and move on. We have to compromise and be flexible here. I see you digging your heels in about "conspiracy theory", about that other article, what was it?, Anti-Globalization and Anti-Semitism. Being stubborn and intractable is counterproductive. You are squandering your energies, and Wikipedia needs your talents in many ways. I say this over and over again here: pick your battles wisely. And the collary: accept defeat. Don't try to save Wikipedia on your own. You will never succeed. -- Viajero | Talk 11:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq cleanup

Hi. In response to EatAlbertaBeef's request, I put a list of POV problems I saw on 2003 invasion of Iraq on the article's talk page. Since you've expressed an interest in retaining some of the stuff in the article he was trying to remove (or at least, that's my interpretation of the revert you recently made), I'm curious what you'd think about the specific things I commented on as representing a POV problem.

While I don't share EatAlbertaBeef's conservative leanings (my personal politics are pretty much the opposite), I think it's true that the article as it currently stands does a poor job of being a neutral encyclopedia article on the Iraq war, in part because it has devolved into a large collection of evidence and counter-evidence on the war's justification. Now, personally, I'm strongly opposed to the actions the Bush administration took in bringing the war about, and think the evidence of what they did should be required reading for anyone of voting age. But I think they're more likely to find that information and benefit from it if the collection of Wikipedia articles concerning the war are as high-quality as possible. And in the case of this particular article, I think its quality would be enhanced if a lot of that material was aggressively summarized, and, for the part of it that isn't already included in the various war-justification-specific articles, moved to one or more of those.

Anyway, I was curious what you thought about that. John Callender 00:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spamming?

I've seen you make some dubious edits before, but helping random anonymous users spam articles? Knock it off please. Rhobite 05:09, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

What's Zen Got to do with it?

Sorry, but reading your rants leaves me wondering why you would pick such a name as Zen Master. It is a pretty offensive and arrogant affectation, imho.

I agree I would be a poor teacher of apprentices, however, I mean the name as in perceiving something in a flash of zen insight. To which rant are you referring? zen master T 06:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD vote

Hey ZM - I've been getting back in the swing of editing more on here lately, after being busy with some other stuff for a while. Just thought I'd let you know that a VfD is currently underway for a 9/11 related article - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/September 11, researchers. Blackcats 04:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship

Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please be polite on talk pages

Hate to barge in like this, but Patrick asked me to review the talk page at race and intelligence. Did you really say, "Racism is the most plausible explanation/motivation for your actions" to another contributor here? That's like calling him a racist to his face. Anyway, we don't do that here.

You might want to read Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks before your next talk-page post. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

RFC of Punk'd guy

I filed an RFC about the Punk'd guy. I was wondering if you'd certify it? Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/205.154.159.1. Rhobite 07:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Apology re: username

I'm sorry. In my haste I completely misunderstood your sig:

• User:Zen-master|zen master ]] [[User talk:Zen-master| T

Somehow I took that as "Zen Master T" - but now I realize that the T stands for talk. No offense? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Name-calling not allowed

"their actions are either racist and/or nazi-esque"

Now that you have been warned, any admin may block your account, for up to 24 hours, if you break this rule again.

If that admin is me, the block will only be for 10 minutes. Others may not be so lenient. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Hi Zenmaster, maybe we can resolve this on this talk page instead of continuing the discussion between the number of people on race and intelligence, as it went for a long time without producing results, and participants there seem to not be interested in discussing it further. --Nectarflowed ^T 21:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We last wrote:

"Describing the issue solely in terms of "race" is detrimental toward understanding the abstract nature of the disparity." zen master

"The disparity is between races. Therefore, the disparity between races is discussed in terms of race."--Nectarflowed

""Races" is just one way of describing the effects of the unexplained disparity and just one way of dividing the population." zen master

"If the disparity under investigation is not between racial groups, what is it between?" Nectarflowed

Dividing the population by "race" is just one way of dividing the population. If you were to divide the population by nutrition and the same disparity shows up how is it a "racial" disparity? This disparity is abstract and has nothing to do with descriptive words used to explain it. Framing this abstract disparity only in racial terms seems to me to be an attempt at confusing cause and effect. Repetition is combined with this cause and effect confusion to trick the mind into only thinking about the abstract disparity in racial terms, over time this wears people down into assuming that the only method of division used to describe the abstract disparity is the cause for that disparity. That is wrong. Why needlessly confuse cause and effect unless there is a purpose in mind? Neutrality is the prime directive of wikipedia and that includes the neutrality of language used to present a subject. zen master T 21:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to emphasize in your above text what appears to be the most useful core of your argument, excluding your extrapolation to possible hidden agendas ("unless there is a purpose in mind"), which doesn't seem useful.

The purpose of this area of research is to divide the population by race and try to identify the causes for the disparity that is apparent between the racial groups. There are likely very many causes, nutrition being just one. If you were to divide the population by nutrition, the disparity observed would be a disparity between groups of different nutrition levels, in which you would have people of different races spread out in the different groups. In that case, you would no longer be looking for the cause of the racial disparity, which likely goes beyond any single cause. This is why these researchers divide the population by race. (In order to keep this discussion on a single page, if you respond here I will see it on my watchlist) Best, Nectarflowed ^T 22:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The purpose or end goal of this area of research should not be to "divide the population" it should be to determine both a cause and a solution for the abstract disparity (if it really exists). If there are "very many causes" why does the article only describe the abstract disparity or the effect of the disparity one way, in terms of race? Any conclusion or even any analysis on the cause for an abstract disparity is tainted if it is described (and hence thought of) only in terms of race. There are an equal number of effects or ways of describing the unexplained abstract disparity to go along with each of the "very many causes" (emphasis mine). On a neutrality of language level, focusing or merely listing possible alternative causes, as you do (others do it repeatedly), misdirects away from the point that the abstract disparity should not be described or thought of solely in term of one effect: "race", that is simply just one among many ways of dividing the population. Since this disparity is abstract, and to remain neutral and scientific, the article should encourage abstract thinking on the subject. The article should have a sentence that looks something like "race may not be a factor in the nutritional disparity". Even if a "researcher" divides the population by "race" and that shows some sort of "disparity" that does not mean nutrition is not 100% the cause for that disparity. Why do you and this article seemingly only support dividing the population by and describing it (and hence thinking about it) only in racial terms? Conclusions should be based on neutrally presented facts, not errant language or needlessly confused cause and effect. zen master T 23:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The disparity under investigation is between the average IQ scores of different racial groups. The reason for investigation is the identification of the causes of the disparity, such as nutrition. The disparity in IQ is the effect of these speculative causes. The reason for dividing the population according to race is so that we can identify the causes (that are creating this disparity between the races). It is common in science to divide the population according to a certain set of characteristcs and compare the resulting groups. For example, you can divide the population according to education level, and look for differences between those groups. The article does not examine the effects of the disparity in IQ, only the possible causes.--Nectarflowed ^T 00:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nutrition is not just an alternative possible cause for the abstract disparity it is also an equally valid way of describing the disparity. Identifying the cause means thinking about the abstract disparity using neutral terms, to do otherwise taints any analysis or conclusion. It is uncommon in science to deviate from the scientific method. If you only ever divide the population by "race" it's no wonder that is the only possible cause you can come up with. The fact that the less "dominant" "race" in each country worldwide scores lower indicates "race" is a non factor in the disparity. If there is an education level or nutrition disparity how is that a "race" disparity? You are confusing effect with cause again. zen master T 01:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:"If there is an education level or nutrition disparity how is that a "race" disparity?"

Because the disparity in education level is between races. Likewise, there is a gender gap between genders in some areas.

Re:"If you only ever divide the population by "race" it's no wonder that is the only possible cause you can come up with."

The cause of the IQ disparity is not "race," but rather factors such as average education level of the race etc.

Re:"The fact that the less "dominant" "race" in each country worldwide scores lower indicates "race" is a non factor in the disparity. "

The disparity would still be between races.--Nectarflowed ^T 03:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since the disparity is unexplained with sufficient consensus among the scientific community the article should not use "race" exclusively to describe the issue. If nutrition is eventually determined to be the cause then one day there will be consensus to label the issue historically as the "nutrition disparity". It might be more accurate to say "wealth level is the cause for the nutritional disparity" (I just realized now you are additionally confusing/misdirecting away from the fact that your method of dividing the population uses 2 variables, not just one [but there are many other possible variables]). Until the day the scientific community reaches consensus or near consensus the article and title should not subtly conclude anything about this subject (in this case by needlessly confusing effect with cause). Endless repetition by you in support of what I consider to be language propaganda is nazi-esque. zen master T 03:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:"If nutrition is eventually determined to be the cause then one day there will be consensus to label the issue historically as the "nutrition disparity"."

If nutrition were to be the only cause, then the disparity would still be a racial IQ disparity, albeit one caused by nutrition. This is because the 2 measurements being compared are race and IQ. --Nectarflowed ^T 04:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are many valid other ways of describing the abstract disparity, "wealth and nutrition" is one other pair for example. The question then becomes why do you only divide up the population by race and IQ? That is just one way of dividing up the population, but you and this article would have us believe that that is the only way we should even think about this issue. That is wrong, certainly the scientific method should encourage people to think about the issue in numerous ways? Any conclusions, or subtly conclusive language, is tainted by only utilizing one method of division. What other theory is there that explains the excessive repetition used in support of an obvious misuse of language for the apparent purpose of racism than nazism? zen master T 04:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to emphasize in your above text what appears to be the most useful core of your argument.

Re:"There are many valid other ways of describing the abstract disparity, "wealth and nutrition" is one other pair for example."

The article is not on "wealth and nutrition" or the broad topic "Disparities between groups;" the article is on the relationship between race and IQ. The only disparity under investigation is the IQ gap between racial groups. If the cause of the disparity is nutrition, that doesn't change that there is an IQ disparity between races. Dividing the population by race is useful because we can then see that there is a racial IQ gap, and we can then set up studies to attempt to determine the cause. --Nectarflowed ^T 05:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You fail to realize or admit that "race" vs "IQ" and "wealth" vs "nutrition" may describe the exact same abstract disparity. Given this scientific fact why do some people and the article repeatedly focus on just "race" vs "IQ"? An abstract disparity does exist but words used to describe it have to be neutral and certainly shouldn't hint at unscientific conclusions by only framing an abstract issue one way. There is no scientific or otherwise consensus to present this abstract disparity exclusively in terms of "race" and "IQ". Why did someone hurriedly create redirects from Nutrition and intelligence to Race and intelligence when I offhandedly suggested it on the talk page? zen master T 05:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: ""race" vs "IQ" and "wealth" vs "nutrition" may describe the exact same abstract disparity."

How do you know that? Every scientist in this area thinks there are multiple causes of the racial IQ disparity. How do you know racism doesn't have any effect? The disparity under investigation is a disparity in IQ between races. Do you disagree?--Nectarflowed ^T 06:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You just did it again, repetition in support of language misuse. Framing other valid ways of describing the abstract disrepancy ("wealth" vs "nutrition") as just some random other causes misdirects away from the fact that "race" vs "IQ" is not the only effect or only way of describing the abstract disparity. The disparity under investigation is abstract as there are numerous pairs of description or division methods that can validly be used to describe it. Why do you try so hard to maintain psychologically misdirecting language trickery? zen master T 06:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, let's settle that the disparity under question is between racial groups, right?--Nectarflowed ^T 11:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You just did the repetition again, if the disparity is really "wealth" vs "nutrition" then framing the issue solely as "race" vs "IQ" will only lead to incorrect assumptions about the cause. Given the fact many possible causes exist scientifically the issue should not be framed in exclusively one way. zen master T 17:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Setting aside how we define the disparity - as a disparity in IQ, wealth, nutrition or whatever - it exists between racial groups, right? Some have more of whatever we're measuring, and some have less? Best, Nectarflowed ^T 18:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You used the repetition yet again, and you did not actually set aside how you define it. If the cause of the disparity is because of "wealth" vs "nutrition" then "race" vs "IQ" may point to the exact same disparity but "race" isn't the cause! That only would prove some "races" get less nutrition because they are less wealthy. Why do you only divide the population by "racial groups" when there are many other scientific possibilities? You repeatedly try to misidrect away from the point that "racial groups" is just one method of grouping, "nutrition class" is another. Why do you consistently use repetition and psychological misdirection in support of maintaining what is arguably a racist presentation of a subject? zen master T 19:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:"Why do you only divide the population by "racial groups" when there are many other scientific possibilities?"

The reason researchers divide the population by racial groups is so that they can examine the factors that may be involved in creating the disparity that exists between racial groups. Possible causes in the disparity between racial groups are considered to include nutrition, level of education, income, developing environment, racism, and biological differences. Dividing by nutrition class doesn't tell you as much about the factors influencing the racial groups. Limiting the topic to "Income and nutrition" would produce a narrower topic that doesn't take into account these other possible causes.

Re:"you did not actually set aside how you define it."

The disparity in this topic is defined in average IQ scores.--Nectarflowed ^T 21:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The disparity is abstract, "race" vs "IQ" is just one way of describing it. Do you disagree that the disparity is abstract and/or you don't even want to risk people thinking about it that way so you don't even acknowledge my question? To describe the disparity as "income and nutrition" does not "limit" it as you say, that phrase describes the exact same abstract disparity as "race vs IQ". The only limiting being done is by you when you literally limit alternative possibilities by discounting them with nothing but errant language. Are you aware IQ is dramatically affected by nutrition? Are you aware of a wealth disparity between the "races"? Given all these scientific facts why do you only want to describe the abstract disparity using one set of terms? Why do you consistently try to force and subtly discount other division pair methods ("wealth" vs "nutrition") by labeling and then discounting them as mere possible causes within the "race" vs "IQ" disparity? How the issue is framed is how the brain will think about it, for the most part. We need to break free of thinking about and framing the issue just your way. A single method of division or description pair should not be considered conclusive or even hint at causality, regardless how many times it is repeated. To put how your language propaganda works simply, the abstract disparity is errantly framed a certain way to eliminate the chance that "race" will ever be scientifically disproven as a cause -- how can race ever be disproven as a cause if you only ever allow framing of the issue in terms of "race"? Wow, how easy it must be for you to discount "nutrition" as a cause for the "race" disparity. All you have to do is add repetition to this errant framing to wear down people's minds, after you've discounted alternative causes the only thing that is left is the errant framing of the issue solely in terms of "race". Now that I have completely figured out how it works, I am even more convinced that you have a purpose in mind. zen master T 23:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:"Now that I have completely figured out how it works, I am even more convinced that you have a purpose in mind."

You have repeatedly pointed out that you think the arguments I and other users are using are motivated by a hidden motive, such as racist beliefs. I think it is an ugly, mean practice to think of people differently just because they're members of one race or sex or something else. Can we focus now on trying to reach a mutual understanding?

Re:"Do you disagree that the disparity is abstract ... To describe the disparity as "income and nutrition" does not "limit" it as you say, that phrase describes the exact same abstract disparity as "race vs IQ"."

Can we define the abstract disparity you are referring to? Is it a disparity of some groups having more of something than other groups?--Nectarflowed ^T

Where "groups" can be "wealth level" vs "nutrition" then yes. Dividing by "race" (as you seem to be hinting at by using the word "groups") is just one among many ways of dividing a set of data. zen master T 00:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would "Racial disparities" be an acceptable article title?--Nectarflowed ^T 00:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, something like IQ test controversy could work but I think we can do even better. zen master T 02:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many researchers have criticism of this area of research, but there aren't any who believe there aren't actually IQ disparities between racial groups. It has been shown in many studies and is easily duplicatable. Would "IQ disparities" be an acceptable article title?--Nectarflowed ^T 23:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, "IQ test controversy" is the best I can do so far. I am not saying there isn't an abstract disparity, I am saying that "race" vs "IQ" is just one among ways of looking at the issue. There is no consensus that "race" is a cause, presenting the issue the way you want to still frames the issue exclusively in terms of "race" which is wrong. "IQ disparities" ignores the fact that the core of the controversy surrounds the IQ tests themselves, can they objectively measure intelligence, and is it valid or dubious to correlate test results with just one bit of data warehouse type information. zen master T 06:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:"There is no consensus that "race" is a cause"

If being born in one "race" or another does not influence people's IQ, through difference in average education level of the parents or through anything else, why do the different racial groups have different average IQs?--Nectarflowed ^T 18:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lack of wealth results in lack of nutrition and education generally. So this disparity may prove those with low "IQ" had less wealth. zen master T 19:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. So if this disparity were caused entirely by less wealth, would it be acceptable to say there is a racial disparity?--Nectarflowed ^T 20:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope (as I've been saying repeatedly). zen master T 20:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there a racial disparity in wealth?--Nectarflowed ^T 20:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All "races" are equally susceptible to not having wealth or are you claiming otherwise? Look at all the info in the article that less wealthy people worldwide have lower "IQ" regardless of "race". The actual disparity here (the cause) is "wealth" and "nutrition" whereas "race" is just one effect or description. The word "disparity" is actually inappropriate too now that I think about it, "correlation" could work since this entire subject unscientifically correlates between dubious IQ test results and just one bit of data warehouse information about the test taker. Now that I think about it I bet many IQ and even SAT test results were sabotaged for the purpose of maintaining this racist and economic caste system, someone should investigate the companies that wrote such tests for any history of naziism or racism. zen master T 21:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there a gender disparity in average income? (Disparity = "The condition or fact of being unequal"[6]--Nectarflowed ^T 21:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When you combine "race" with "disparity" you imply "race" is the cause which is wrong, especially since the cause is likely wealth and nutrition but more importantly because there is no consensus for "race" as the cause. One correlation of data does not prove and should not hint at causality. zen master T 22:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it is ok to say there is a gender disparity in average income without implying gender is the cause, why is it not ok to say there is a racial disparity in average income? I'm asking why is your response different to the two cases. --Nectarflowed ^T 23:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not convinced it is ok, but if it is the gender income disparity doesn't have as much misdirecting repetition as "race" vs "IQ" does. The language propaganda requires at least two ingredients, errant framing of the issue using just one non abstract term such as "race", plus, repetition of that term "race" to mentally confuse description of the issue with cause. We have to be conscious of language. The phrase "racial disparity" can be read/interpreted more than one way, first as just a description of the issue, but also as a cause for the issue, that is needlessly ambiguous and unscientific. If the issue is only ever allowed to be described in terms of "race" how easy it must be for the language propagandist to imply "race" is the cause. zen master T 23:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it fair to say there are different average incomes in different racial groups?--Nectarflowed ^T 00:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are still a broken record, that is one (probably inaccurate) among many ways of looking at the issue. zen master T 02:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you accept the above statement on its own, not related to the article we're discussing? --Nectarflowed ^T 04:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I can not accept that, it would be unfair to say that since the abstract issue is not that simple. zen master T 08:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it fair to say some people have higher incomes than others?--Nectarflowed ^T 20:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking yes, but within the current context perhaps not. Are you effectively arguing now that those with more money are smarter so they deserve more money? That is circular logic, the point that anyone could be smart given money/nutrition does not enter your picture for some reason. zen master T 20:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You wrote above: "If you were to divide the population by nutrition and the same disparity shows up how is it a "racial" disparity? This disparity is abstract and has nothing to do with descriptive words used to explain it."

There is a difference between racial groups in average IQ. That's pretty easy to measure and is not so abstract. It's also not controversial, except among laymen and in the popular media. It's also to be expected, as there are different levels of education, income, and nutrition between racial groups. Do you disagree with any of this? It sounds like you're saying it's racist to look for the causes of this difference in racial groups. Is it racist to compare race vs. representation in the senate?--Nectarflowed ^T 29 June 2005 20:18 (UTC)

2

Just watching, and no offense intended, but you've asked this same question at least 3-4 times now - imho it's not racist to examine and investigate, but a title like 'Race and Intelligence' presupposes a relationship between the two, and implies a causative relationship in lieu of more information/clarification. It's an inaccurate title, and an inaccurate premise. Each are bad form if the goal is to come to the truth - but if the goal is to reinforce racist views or race-based views, they work wonders. -- RyanFreisling @ 29 June 2005 23:09 (UTC)

Yes, this topic is going in circles here, just as it was doing at the race and intelligence discussion page, and I think those users are right that we should wrap it up.

Replying to your comment, "A title like 'Race and Intelligence' presupposes a relationship between the two," the correlation between race and measures of intelligence is as verifiable as the correlation between gender and representation in the senate, and is uncontroversial. What that correlation means shouldn't be presupposed and is considered by most researchers to be presently unknown.

It hasn't been made clear to the editors of this article why 'race and intelligence' would imply more than correlation when other normal comparisons don't, such as 'South East Asian countries and monsoons' or 'race and senate representation.' Best, Nectarflowed ^T 30 June 2005 00:21 (UTC)

Verifiable, possibly...uncontroversial, far from it. In trying to find the relationship between race and intelligence, there are clearly judgmental aspects outside of the mere statistical analysis. In any scientic research, we are meant to prove or disprove a hypothesis... what is the hypothesis here? Saying merely to find the relationship between the two is incredibly naive. So what? What is the significance of such a possible link? In addition, the only way we would know such a thing is through clumsy statistical analysis of a large amount of people, which will find correlations but no cause as to why such a discrepancy would exist. Societal factors may weigh much heavier than pure race statistics, but because people of a certain race (especially minorities) band together and thus live in similar economic conditions, this may show up as a "racial" difference. There's a reason why people stopped studying this bullshit. Any conclusions made about such a link are highly dubious, and have the potential to hurt more than harm. And if you truly cannot answer why 'race and intelligence' is in a different class than 'race and senate representation', then i'll answer it for you: it's because unlike the latter, the former contains connotations of superiority between different people, a topic which is highly touchy to say the least. --kizzle June 30, 2005 01:18 (UTC)

Probably because the correlation of 'race and intelligence' has been an oft-used meme in eugenic or racist philosophies, and the justification for the murders of millions - and the posting of an article so titled is unlikely to state 'there is no direct correlation between race and intelligence that can not be more directly attributed to other causes, such as nutrition, educational and economic status'. Those making such claims are in extremely bad company, historically speaking... and their claims are no more accurate or true today than they were in ancient times, in the 1850's, or in the 1930's and 40's. -- RyanFreisling @ 30 June 2005 01:20 (UTC)

Re: "Verifiable, possibly...uncontroversial, far from it."

Scientific consensus is that the gap is both real and significant. This is covered in the article. It's more in the media and among the lay population that this correlation is considered controversial.

Race and intelligence research is a normal area of research that publishes in prominent peer-reviewed journals, though, yes, it is a touchy subject and its history has contributed to very large injustices.

You're using "controversial" as to the claim's veracity, whereas I am using "controversial" to refer to the societal implications of such a study. --kizzle June 30, 2005 16:42 (UTC)

Re: "An article so titled is unlikely to state 'there is no direct correlation between race and intelligence that can not be more directly attributed to [non-biological] causes.'"

Scientific consensus regards attempts to identify the cause to be inconclusive. You might find the statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence," which was signed by 52 intelligence researchers and meant to outline "conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence," to be a useful source for verifying the statements made in race and intelligence. "There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. [...] Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too."

Re: "[This title] contains connotations of superiority between different people."

Yes, "intelligence" is culturally deeply valued, so intelligence research may give the appearance of ranking the value of people, based on their performance on cognitive tests. This is a problem on all the articles on intelligence, including neuroscience and intelligence, gender and intelligence, etc. Consensus on the race and intelligence discussion page is that some disclaimers are needed in the intro in order to limit readers' interpretations. Best, Nectarflowed ^T 30 June 2005 04:48 (UTC)

Clearly there is a reason why you are fascinated with this topic. I wonder if you would honestly state why this topic appeals to you so much? And in the utilitarianist sense, what can society benefit from such studies? --kizzle June 30, 2005 16:42 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. I'm writing my graduate thesis in cognitive science. I study the brain and mind, and in this, both intelligence and behavioral genetics are useful areas, pieces of the fascinating puzzle of mind. Some science commentators think our culture has a tendency to underemphasize the biological influence on mind. If this is done, it's probably because many people feel such research lessens the meaningfulness of human experience. I don't feel there are limits to human potential. Regarding the utility of this kind of research, my feelings are that studying intelligence makes societies smarter.

As for what the scientists doing the research might think, I'll defer to the press release for a recent peer-reviewed article by J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen: "[Regarding policy issues that stem from their conclusions,] their main recommendation is that people be treated as individuals, not as members of groups. They emphasized that their paper pertains only to average differences. They also called for the need to accurately inform the public about the true nature of individual and group differences, genetics and evolutionary biology."[7]--Nectarflowed ^T 1 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

Why is there a need to inform the public about the true nature of individual and group differences, specifically in intelligence? And how does statistical research help treat people as individuals, not as members of groups? Isn't this the very antithesis of what the study aims to accomplish? --kizzle July 1, 2005 01:21 (UTC)

Suggest a quick change

I think Ed may ban you for a while if he sees that N-esque word. (See his message of several days ago.) You can avoid the whole problem by talking about "ideologically driven discourse". Everybody will know what you have in mind, but I don't think they can regard it as personally offensive to anybody. It might be best to go back and reword. P0M 04:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Patrick, excuse me but:

1. Let me speak for myself.
2. Meet me at talk:P0M.
3. Thank you. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 11:21 (UTC)

I stand by my description of words and method of presentation. Where have I done simple "name calling" since I was "warned"? I really just want an explanation for the repetition that exacerbates pre-existing language confusion. zen master T 08:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zen, I've said it before: by all means please start the Nutrition and intelligence article. I would really, really want to read it, as would most other editors of the current page. Really. And contribute to any other XYZ and intelligence article that you can find evidence for (some of them are already on Wikipedia, Sex and intelligence, for example). Many of the current editors of this page have done just that.

And I would also be happy if you stopped questioning our political motivations, inflammatory language or not. Rik mentioned his left-wing credentials a few week ago, and mine are similar: I have voted Green all my life, attend anti-war and anti-fascism demos, bike to work, am a hard-headed atheist, a conscientous objector, etc. But it really oughtn't be necessary for me or others to justify the work we do here by such confessions. Arbor 21:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would not solve the problems with Race and intelligence, the problem is not simply "other stuff isn't being presented", the problem is that the entire issue is being framed incorrectly around "race" vs "intelligence". There is NO consensus that IQ tests are an objective measure of intelligence, yet some let Race and intelligence persist, why? zen master T 21:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for answering so quickly. If I understand you there are two things here. The first I don't understand. "The issue", i.e., what this article wants to be about, is Race and intelligence, and indeed we frame it around "race" and "intelligence". You are simply not get through to us as to what's wrong with that. Framing it in terms of "race" and "intelligence" is the whole point of the article. Second, about IQ tests versus intelligence, that is another issue. (And we have a Wikepedia entry for it, see the links at IQ test controversy.) The current article is not only about IQ, but also about lots of other measurable traits that people might want to associate with their private understanding of intelligence. However, psychologists seem to agree that IQ tests are the most objective measure of what-is-commonly-understood-by-intelligence, and there are references to several "consensus statements" that say so, none of which has met with any resistance from other psychologists. So if you say "NO consensus", you seem to be saying "NO consensus outside the psychology professions"? Or do you claim that psychologogists don't agree on that? Arbor 22:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What the "article wants to be about" or what you want it to be about? If the "whole point" of the article is to frame it exclusively around "race" and "intelligence" then the whole point of the article is to be illegitimately racist. Titles of WP articles must be straightforward and should not hint at or subtly infer cause. Inside the article subjects are required to be presented fairly. How can "race" ever be disproven as the cause of the "IQ disparity" if the issue is only ever framed in terms of "race"? To put it simply, framing this issue exclusively in terms of "race" means you've already arrived at a cause which is unscientific. Forming conclusions scientifically is a multi step process. Step 1: describe issue neutrally using clear language, Step 2: correlate consensus facts using clear language, Step 3: arrive at conclusions logically. The way this issue is currently framed violates each step. zen master T 23:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Civility

Would the rest of you please leave the room and let me talk to Zen-master alone for a while. You can stand at the door and listen.

Z, you had me there for a moment (at R&I talk) but then you suddenly lost me. When you said Only a racist would I wanted to ask you to leave the web site for a few days.

But since I believe in you, let my suggest something different. Instead of using inflammatory language - which some other contributors might infer was directed towards them - why not rephrase your sentence? You can get the same point across by saying It is not right to.

-- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 11:16 (UTC)

Nuclear Power (again)

Thanks for cleaning up the Intro! I was struggling with a rewrite - yours is much better and more tactful. Simesa 28 June 2005 21:24 (UTC)

My apology

Dear ZM -- Please accept my apology for comments directed at you rather than the content you've posted. I let emotions get the better of me, I'm ashamed, and I'm sorry. --DAD 1 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

P0M's Apology

Dear Zen-master,

I am getting too involved in this thing to say things the right way, and frustrated too. I do not want to make you feel bad, which I may be doing. I did want to get past one tangled point in the debate -- I guess that is what it has become instead of a discussion. It would probably have helped if we could discuss this in real time as otherwise I tend to obscure single points that I need to get straight on by going on to other things that kick up in my mind at the same time. Then I frustrate myself because my point may not get answered. More than that, I can (or think I can) see what you are trying to say, and I am in more agreement with you than you may realize, but what you are trying to say does not come through in terms that are unambiguous to me. So I dig at the language to try to get it to come through unambiguously. If that sounds angry or hurtful, it may be because what I write is tinged with frustration and impatience. Anyway, it sounded like whatever it sounded like to you, and I apologize. I did not intend to create bad feelings, and I'm sorry if I did.

Sincerely,

Patrick Moran

Personal Question

I notice that you have been hounded recently in quick alerts, and i am actively pusuing mediation while others are having pages blocked and threatening vandalism complaints etc ... and i just wondered - am i just playing hard, or is that the nature of tough issues? I ask you because i trust you. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

Sure, I'm happy to work with you on this. I wouldn't mind being given some time to do a copy edit, just to get a structure in place, so we can start making more substantive changes, if you and others agree with them. I do think it's important to say upfront what he said. An intro has to tell the reader why we're writing about this person, and the "chickens coming home to roost" quote describes it well in a way most people will understand. As for the two disputed paras, they really are original research, because they involve WP editors providing the background, or what they see as the background, whereas we should only report what others have said about the Ward Churchill situatio, not about Iraq. Let's continue this on the talk page so that others can add their views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 6, 2005 10:19 (UTC)

Katie Holmes drawing

Hi,

I noticed you removed Katie Holmes.jpg from Katie Holmes. Is there any reason for that? It's the only free content image of Katie we currently have, and such images should generally take precedence over fair use materials, even if they are of inferior quality.--Eloquence* 20:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rule against it, Wikipedia:Choosing appropriate illustrations certainly does not forbid it. Practice has been to remove such images where they are considered to be unrealistic portrayals of the subject; however, as I said, I believe a free illustration is generally preferable to a non-free photograph.--Eloquence* 23:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for photos -- if free content can be found. The goal to produce a free encyclopedia should be paramount, and illustrations are a good stopgap solution until a Wikipedian manages to take a photo, or someone donates one. Just slapping fair use on everything is a very convenient approach, but also a risky one that doesn't really fit into what we're trying to do. There have also been frequent crackdowns on fair use in Wikipedia, so it is not at all certain that such photos will be allowed to stay.--Eloquence* 23:23, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, but in this specific instance, the drawing appears to be modeled after a copyrighted photo, so it's not really much less problematic than a photo. I do feel strongly, however, that accurate free content drawings should take precedence over non-free photos ("publicity shots" are still non-free, with limts on commercial reusability, right to modify, etc.), and, due to the fact that we have no policy on this yet, would like to ask you to note any removal on the discussion page of the article in the future. Thanks,--Eloquence* 00:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

You might as well argue that taking a photo is original research, as you're not using material from existing sources. OR is more about conclusions than about observations. As long as the reproduction is accurate, I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. We have many user-contributed diagrams and even paintings, some of which made it to featured pictures status. I'm not asking you to agree with me, and I'm not proposing to write yet another policy. What I'm asking you to do is to be careful in such cases, and record what you're doing on the discussion pages, so that others can track back, and compare it with established precedents. The edit you made to Katie Holmes was simply summarized as "first pass at POV clean ups and general clean ups", with no mention or justification of the removal of the image anywhere. To let reasonable best practices evolve, I believe it's important to get communiy input on these matters, rather than simply discard materials other editors might consider useful.--Eloquence* 01:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

New Arbitration case

Heya,

I have now opened the requested Arbitration case in which you are involved, here; please add any evidence you think would be useful to us in coming to our judgement onto the evidence sub-page.

Thank you very much in advance for your efforts,

James F. (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Zen-master, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at AIDS conspiracy theories and have been temporarily blocked from editing. If you feel the block is unfair, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page, and I'll get straight back to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:25, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

3RR inaccuracy

I tried to post the following to the 3RR page here but was illegitimately blocked before I could do so. If there are any admins watching my talk page can they take a look?

• There is a legitimate neutrality dispute over the title to AIDS conspiracy theories, this is a case of correcting simple vandalism, and the above point to 3 different page versions (look carefully at the alleged reverts above). Jayjg is not arguing in good faith, note this completely inaccurate edit and checkin comment that damages wikipedia to illustrate a point: [8] Also note Jayjg's own reverts designed to censor the existence of a legitimate neutrality dispute: [9] zen master T 19:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Also note: the 4th alleged "revert" was not actually a revert, and the first 3 each revert to a different version of the article. Removing headers that signify a legitimate neutrality dispute should count as simple vandalism. zen master T 19:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting article/study

Debunking the History of Race

Black Americans who explore their family histories typically hit a dead end in the early 19th century, when black Americans who were slaves were not listed in the census by name. Now some black Americans are trying to fill in the gap with genetic screening tests that purport to tell descendants exactly where in Africa their ancestors came from. But, like most people, those who think of themselves as African-American will need to search well beyond Africa to find all of their origins.

This point came through with resounding clarity recently at Pennsylvania State University, where about 90 students took complex genetic screening tests that compared their samples with those of four regional groups. Many of these students thought of themselves as "100 percent" white or black or something else, but only a tiny fraction of them, as it turned out, actually fell into that category. Most learned instead that they shared genetic markers with people of different skin colors.

Ostensibly "black" subjects, for example, found that as much as half of their genetic material came from Europe, with some coming from Asia as well. One "white" student learned that 14 percent of his DNA came from Africa - and 6 percent from East Asia. The student told The Daily Collegian, the student newspaper, earlier this year: "When I got my results I was like, there's no way they were mine. I thought it was just an example of what the test was supposed to look like. Then I was like, Oh my God, that's me."

Prof. Samuel Richards, who teaches a course in race and ethnic relations at Penn State, uses the test results to shake students out of rigid and received notions about the biological basis of identity. By showing students that they aren't what they think they are, he shows them that race and ethnicity are more fluid and complex than most of us think. The goal is to make students less prejudiced and more open to a deeper discussion of humanity. If the genetic testing fad pushes things in this direction, it will have served an important purpose in a world that too often thinks of racial labels as absolute - and the last word when it comes to human identity. NYTimes,

dkos blog chat

Guild

Hi!

I would like to invite you to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild, a project aimed at assembling the efforts to represent Conspiracies in wikipedia :)

--Striver 04:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism definition

The reference to non-governmental actors in the terrorism article simply indicates that this criteria may sometimes be used to define terrorism. The article is at pains to stress that this is by no means definitive, a qualification of this list appears immediately below the bullets: "None of these are universally accepted as being either necessary or sufficient."

Take, for example, the 2nd edition of the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics's entry on terrorism:

Term with no agreement amongst government or academic analysts, but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe life-threatening actions prepetrated by politically motivated self-appointed sub-state groups.

Terrorism most commonly refers to non-governmental actors - but not always. The above definition and terrorism article both recognise this. Of course, there is scope within this article for a discussion of state-terror (the OCDP definition given above goes on to discuss the very thing). Perhaps you may want to add something in the definition section under 'perpetrator' rather than removing a common criteria with a qualification.

I personally believe terrorism is a tactic frequently employed by governments against their opponents. I still recognise, however, that the 'non-governmental' criteria is still prominent, to some degree, in mainstream discourse. It should therefore remain, provided it is qualified. TreveX^talk 16:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of my recent changes? I've added a section on state terrorism to the 'perpetrators' section in definitions and expanded the qualification at the beginning. TreveX^talk 17:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

The editor in question has been banned for continuing disruption. Many of his edits are personal attacks, as are some of his sockpuppet names. Edits by banned users can be reverted on sight. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read comment above. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're bothered by the IP's point: Israel did not publicly announce that; in fact, they publicly announced the opposite. Those remarks came from retired Israeli agents, not speaking in any official capacity. As far that nice wheel-chair bound cleric, he was constantly orchestrating and inspiring new terrorist attacks. Not exactly harmless. This fellow (69.209.***.**) has been a constant belligerent presence recently. His remarks are almost always distortions, and there should be no need to constantly waste time refuting his nonsense. His challenges are to be understood as lacking in good faith. I believe that that's the reason for the "revert on sight" injunction. HKT ^talk 17:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, rules for userspace are far less rigid than rules for mainspace. Since the IP's edits (wherever they appear) are assumed to be in bad faith, there is more than enough justification for deleting comments. Recently, I posted a polite neutrality reminder on someone's talk page. He subsequently blanked my comments. I didn't pursue the issue; it's his userspace. While I would consider his action inappropriate, it's valid. With this IP's comments, I think blanking is valid and appropriate. As far as your remarks on the terrorist cleric: (1.) Attempting to arrest him would severely endanger the soldiers who would be making the arrest. (2.) He was a hostile and dangerous force operating against the security of the State. It is appropriate to assasinate terrorist entities when arrest is a more dangerous option. (3.) I don't understand why you only call the cleric "unsavory", when he was a known and self-proclaimed hostile and violent entity (hostile and violent against civilians). (4.) How do targeted killings create "more terror"? Terror is created when civilians are targeted, and targeted killings therefore reduce terror. HKT ^talk 17:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits made before bans aren't subject to the same protocol. Of course it's possible for the IP to have a credible edit, but he's still not allowed to edit (or post on article discussion pages, if I'm not mistaken). True, he's allowed to post on user talk pages, but it's the user's discretion to delete such posts. By the way, the police aren't equipped to make an arrest of the nature that we're discussing. The cleric had armed guards, and in situations like that where arrests are made, the guards attack the soldiers. Arrests have been made like that in the past, but more people usually die when that's done. Sending police is entirely unfeasible. HKT ^talk 18:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I already explained why targeted killings save more lives, accidental civilian deaths notwithstanding. Leaving terrorists alone is a rediculous option, as it only leads to many more civilian deaths. As far as censorship, people can censor their userspace as they choose. I don't understand the problem. HKT ^talk 20:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

(1.) My concern is irrelevant. Anyone who wants to may "brazenly censor" his/her userspace and I'd have no say in the matter. To make a fuss over censorship of userspace when you're not even involved is intrusive. (2.) Democratic means governed according to popular demand. You're misusing the term. A group of homocidal maniacs could theoretically be Democratic. It seems that you are defining Democratic as "whatever conforms to my value system." (3.) If you think that targeting pizza shops and discos is "arguably justified," then I don't think that we're on the same wavelength, and we'd better not waste our time continuing this discussion. Cheers, HKT ^talk 20:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I believe the rule is that he can be reverted on sight (including on articles' talk pages), without justification, so the "personal attack" justification was unnecessary. I don't know why you'd think that Israel is afraid of "the issue of the occupation" coming up at a trial; it comes up everywhere, anyway. In fact, Israel managed to arrest Marwan Barghouti, and there were no problems with "occupation issues." Someone who constantly plots to murder civilians is no less dangerous for being in a wheelchair, and is actually much more dangerous for his armed guards who follow him everywhere, ready to shoot and throw grenades at any Israeli police/soldiers who try to arrest him. And saving lives is hardly a rationalization. HKT ^talk 21:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The term that you're misusing now is "terrorist." Terrorism means targeting civilians in order to terrorize the civilian popoulation in hopes of achieving a political objective. Assasination of clear and present threats (e.g. people working to build a bomb or in the process of giving directions to potential bombers), though the assasination may endanger civilians (depending on the situation), isn't remotely a "terrorist tactic." Frequently, terrorists particularly choose to place themselves among/hide behind civilians in order to make it more likely that their enemies will be blamed with civilian deaths. Deir Yassin is an early case in point. Governments primarily serve to protect their citizens. If saving the lives of many citizens might possibly endanger other civilians, most governments would still take action to protect their citizens. Israel is actually an exception; it tends to focus on house-to-house arrests/combat, despite the severely increased danger to its soldiers, in order to protect civilians. In fact, targeted killings by Israel are fairly rare.

You write that a ban is "no justification for the removal of an entire paragraph from an article talk page." That is your opinion, but it apparently contravenes Wikipedia policy. If you wish to do something about this "censorship," I advise you to start on a new policy proposal. HKT ^talk 22:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter long Plots Vfd

Hello, I noticed you were making some objections to the HP Vfd. I do not know if you are still following this, but there has been considerable debate on wikibooks as to whether they should be deleted there. The result is that they will stay, subject to a promise to substantially alter them into a book of analysis. As copied across they do not qualify under their definition of a textbook. Indeed, they consider them to be encyclopedic and to belong here. They are not terribly bothered that they might constitute a copyright violation, which was a big issue in the VFD here.

Anyway, I wondered if you had done anything more, since I seem to have missed both the vote to delete and to undelete. Though it would appear most people missed the latter also. I was very struck that the vote to delete was running heavily as keeps until the issue of copyright was raised. But ultimately the articles did not get deleted for copyvio. So would votes to delete count if the grounds attached to them were disallowed? Sandpiper 15:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Something you might be very interested in

n:2004_Bush_campaign_chairman_pleads_guilty_to_election_fraud,_conspiracy

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/08/10/national/w231835D50.DTL

Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:30, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Featured picture - comments requested

My photo of the bust of Antinous, currently under comment for featured picture

[10] I'm nominating one of my photos for 'featured picture'. Voting isn't for two days, but I'd appreciate your comments if you feel to add them. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Pro conspiracy theory?

I'm not sure why you think this as I've:

• voted to remove the phrase from article titles
• proposed changing the article title at AIDS conspiracy theories
• proposed alternatives to using it in the body of the article
• stated openly that it can be used pejoratively
• stated openly that the common usage seems to ignore the literal definition of the phrase
• stated openly that alternatives are preferable

Given all this, I have to say I'm somewhat confused. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I just don't think you are for real Dante, sorry. I am not saying conclusively that you are definitely pro "conspiracy theory", only that you too often misdirect away from the core issue and seemingly show up at the same time or tag team to control the debate with Jayjg and the rest of that POV "bot" gang. zen master T 22:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, well you are certainly entitled to your opinion, even if I don't really get it. I wasn't aware that I was "misdirecting away from the core issue"... I was trying to get consensus to make the article more reasonable. In any event, I suppose your own personal feelings about my motives are irrelevant to my attempts to fix the article anyway. :) Regardless, some free advice. You are likely to seem paranoid when you accuse people who are on your side of being secretly on the other side. I understand that this is *sometimes* the case in life. But, since I know for a fact that it's NOT true in this case (since I know my own mind), you come off sounding a bit whacked out. Just something to consider. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:55, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I responded to this point on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories, you claimed there is descriptive value in noting that a theory involves people conspiring. That position is not consistent on multiple levels if you truly believe, as you claim, that the phrase is non-neutral. Why is the minor point that the theory involves a conspiracy more noteworthy that the details of the theory itself? If you truly believe the phrase is not neutral why group all theories that allege a conspircy with the large very dubious "conspiracy" genre unless you want it discredited? Each theory should be presented separately and directly and not grouped by the minor point of whether a conspiracy is alleged. zen master T 23:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I've addressed this on the Talk page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:16, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

No, you've responded to it, not "addressed". It's redundant and completely silly to have most every controversial article include the sentence "The theory described in this article alleges a conspiracy". The only conclusion I can come up with for why you would want to do that is to taint that theory with dubiousness by grouping it with the larger generic "conspiracy" genre. An encyclopedia should dissasociate description of an issue from conclusions about that issue (especially when the conclusion needs a caveat) and it also should encourage a conscious awareness of language. zen master T 00:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hubbert

Zen, If I have a bias, it's clearly in favor of non-nuclear renewable energies. That said, the Hubbert peak article goes beyond POV in pushing for a view that seeks to emply science as a means to argue that the lack of oil is imminent. It is not a scientific article, it blends the importance of persons (such as Hubbert) and uses his minor and singular success as part of a conspiracy of persuasion and I find it distasteful and bringing disrepute to science, and in particular environmental science and the contemplation of alternatives to pollution. Let's find common ground. I promise to be reasonable. Benjamin Gatti

Race and intelligence debates

Hi Zen-master! Thanks for the note. While I appreciate your warning, I assume good faith with all editors, even the ones with whom I disagree. The main group of hereditarians working on race and intelligence certainly have a POV (as do I), but I have found that the collaborative process is leading to a stronger and more balanced article. Like you, I get impatient at times, but I have been learning a lot from other editors. I think the race and intelligence collaboration is one of the best examples of Wikipeidans working together despite radically different points of view. I look forward to your continued contributions, and I hope you will be as patient as possible when making points and changes. I believe in a few months we will have a very good article that teaches the controversy without POV pushing. That will require ongoing professionalism and courtesy while making clear and concise arguments about why the article is NPOV. Thanks again for your work on this and other articles! Jokestress 23:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom case

Sorry about the temporary slowdown. I'm trying to work this out with the other Arbitrators on the Arbitration listserv. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 02:56, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

conspiracy

is there an article in particular that you think is using the term "conspiracy theory" inappropriately? FuelWagon 00:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

"I don't believe you are oblivious to the previous conspiracy theory brouhaha". Sorry to dissappoint, but I'm clueless. I went to the 'words to avoid' article because I just had a debate about the use of "although" with another editor and saw a whole bunch of reverts on conspiracy theory. It seemed to belong, so I put it in, triggering the avalance. FuelWagon 00:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

what to do

well there's a request for page unprotection sitting on WP:RFPP, you might want express yourself on, And i'm seriously considering taking this to the next level of conflict resolution: RFC/mediation. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case closed

The Arbitration case against you, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master, has been closed, with the following remedies:

• You are banned for one week for making personal attacks.
• You are placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year from the date of closing this case. Should any sysop feel that it is necessary that you be banned from an article where you are engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article, or any other activity which the user considers disruptive, they shall place a template {{Zen-master banned}} at the top of the talk page of the article, and notify you here. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any editor, including yourself, at the end of the ban. If you edit an article you are banned from, you will be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, up to a week for repeat offenses.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

What about race and intelligence? Also, I think there was an error counting the votes, an against vote takes away a positive vote so there were effectively only three yes votes which is less than the required 4 majority for passing, right? zen master T 16:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The against votes only take away supports on the closing vote. For the other votes, a simple majority of four was needed to pass. Carbonite | Talk 16:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

6 arbitrators accepted the case so 4 was needed and with 1 no vote that means the vote was effectively 3? The arbitrators did not specifically determine whether "nazi-esque" was an ok thing to post on a talk page when describing what appears to be pervasive and insidious propaganda? zen master T 16:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I won't presume to speak on the issues of the case itself, but the vote seems pretty straightforward. There were 5 members inactive which means there were 7 active members, thus a majority of 4 to pass any votes. Every vote on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master/Proposed decision received at least 4 supporting votes. Therefore, every measure passed. Carbonite | Talk 16:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the vote but there are other unresolved issues, I asked the arbitration committee to specifically determine whether "nazi-esque" was an ok thing to say when describing apparent propaganda or an apparent racist method of presentation of race and intelligence? zen master T 16:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"Nazi-esque" is not appropriate language, see Wikipedia:civility Fred Bauder 12:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

When describing another person I may agree, when describing apparent propaganda on a talk page I disagree. Though it would be accurate to label Cartman as being "nazi-esque" at times, if not an outright nazi. I apologize for not making myself clear that I interpret an extreme degree of propaganda in the race and intelligence article. At what point are we going to start analyzing the race and intelligence article's method of presentation, are you and others going to continue to ignore my challenge to justify it? zen master T 14:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing disputes

I'll try to find time to take a look at Conspiracy theory. Could I interest you in chiming in at Talk:Stolen Honor#RfC re scope of this article? I put a lot of effort into preparing a neutral summary of the issues, so that people responding to the RfC could get up to speed quickly and express their views. JamesMLane 20:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Conspiracy theory

Zen-master; I think your editing on Conspiracy theory since this past Monday is contrary to the Three-revert rule. Please stop. I again invite you to join me in limiting yourself to one edit per day. Tom Harrison (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Banned from Conspiracy theory

I am banning you for a month from Conspiracy theory for breaking the 3RR and being uncivil. The ban will expire in a month. You may still use the talk page. Please do not take part in edit wars again, surely the arbitration case should have taught you at least that. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in the future. Dmcdevit·t 17:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

And take a look at Wikipedia:Probation for more info. Dmcdevit·t 18:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely read the decision as being blanket. The arbitratin wasn't just for that one article, but for your overall behavior. The disruption and incivility continue, so yes, I think the banning is proper here. Dmcdevit·t 18:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It's because the arbcom case indicated a history of it. And 3RR vio is never acceptable. But, as far as I can tell this is the first application of the, relatively new, probation rules. I have posted a notice on WP:ANI, and I'd like to hear other admins' opinions on duration. I'm very open to a change, and it won't take a month for that discussion to take place, so right now the ength doesn't really mean anything to us. That doesn't mean I want you to go there and try to argue your case of course. Dmcdevit·t 18:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, it looks like the arbcom case was only to do with Race and intelligence. I'm not going to give you a 3RR block now instead, as I'll assume you aren't going to go back right now and continue the edit war. But the status of your ban is unclear at best right now. I've asked for more opinons at WP:ANI. Sorry 'bout the confusion. Dmcdevit·t 01:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess right now, there are no editing restrictions on you. Sorry for the confusion. You may edit the article. If however, you chose to go back and revert again (since I think your last revert was reverted since then) I will be convince that a 3RR block is necessary. Right now, I'm going to assume good faith and wait and see. Dmcdevit·t 03:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I rarely pay attention to deletion votes so thanks for letting me know. - Ted Wilkes 21:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Please leave article content comments and questions on the article talk space. I'd be happy to answer them there. Thanks. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Lets work together to combat the bigots on wikipedia, here are a list of some sources that might help you fight Rikurzhien and his gang:

IQ in Question, by JA Howe Inequality by Design Mismeasure of Man, by Jay Stephen Gould Race, IQ, and Jensen, by James Flynn

and an excellent website filled with essays that (IMO) debunk the racist psuedoscience:

http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/special/pseudoscience-race.html#science%20and%20opportunity

Keep in mind the other side is extremely well funded, organized, and determined, don't get discouraged your up against a group of people with billions of dollars. For all we know Rikurzhien could be getting paid to edit wikipedia by the pioneer fund (not saying he is, but who knows).

iTunes edit war

As a third-party observer, I'd recommend addressing your stance on the talk page, rather than getting into an edit war (you're one rv away from 3RR), where it's been waiting for comment for quite some time now. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 18:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are serious about combatting Rikhurzien and his gang email me

Here is my brand spanking new yahoo email adress:

returntocastlewikipedia@yahoo.com

Email me something and I will post it here (on this talk page), so you can confirm that the email was indeed sent by you. From there we can work together in fighting Rikhurzien and his pals.

Today

Today is wendsday yesterday was tuesday, tommorow will be thursday. zen master T 18:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)