User talk:Giovanni33/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

All set

I've archived this page again. 155 kilobytes moved to /Archive2 :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Leif Ericson

I have removed but with some evidence suggesting the Norseman penetrated as far as Minnesota, either coming down from Hudson Bay or going west through the Great Lakes. from the article, please provide a source to make such a claim, as it standed it was more original research. Lincher 12:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. This claim can be referenced by William O Kellogg, who is former Head of the History Dept. at the highly esteemed St. Paul's School, in his texbook "American History th easy way,' 3rd Ed. ISBN 0-7641-1973-7, 2003. The actual section is on page 9 under "The Vikings." and page 8, "European Immigrants." Im sure if you researched this question, though, you'd find it in many other reputable academic sources.Giovanni33 21:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Zionism article

I was not planning to edit more than the intro to that article. It is indeed a notorious example of 'propaganda by Wikipedia', but this can not be corrected by individual users. The systemic preferences of Wikipedia are to blame, for instance Wikipedia gives a sourced false statement priority over an unsourced true statement. I suggest avoiding the circular discussions at the articles talk page, you could try village pump. Paul111 09:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on Zionism.

I have been pondering an RfC or some other administrative appeal to address the frankly embarrassing level of bias on the Zionism page for some time. Any thoughts on how we should proceed on dispute resolution? BYT 14:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hallo Giovanni, thanks very much for your message. It gladened me especially since it came from you, with whom I have "fought many a battle".

To clear things up, I have not been officially banned from anywhere. It is just Jim making sniding remarks against me (and later also against Ann), answering any argument from my part with accusations of trying to whitewash. In this context he found out, by looking at my user page, that I was a Catholic, and he suggested that as such I couldn't legitimately edit on Catholic issues. And yes, the term "religious racism" is very polemic, being born out of a moment of ire: it's like "no blacks here, no Catholics here". Of course, he hasn't any means of enforcing this view. To protest against it, I have altered my user page for now.

Now, I know that you do not agree with all my edits, but in this case it was merely a disagreement of whether to include a "parade of critics" and their "name calling", which I considered bloating the section without giving substantial information [1] After all, there is a main article on this subject, where all these quote are covered in detail. Jim however chose to accuse me that I wanted to mute criticism against the Pope, whereas I have repeatedly stated that I wouldn't object to a summary of the Muslim objection being included in this place.

I have tried some admins to admonish Jim, but the ones that answered have chosen to ingore it based on the argument that it were a "content dispute". I will not pursue this any further.

Thanks for your offer but I don't think you can be of assistance. Anyway the conflict has calmed down right now. But thanks again for your kind words. All the best, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with history section of Italy article

Giovanni, I have the Italy article on my watchlist, and I reviewed the history section a bit more closely after your edits to try and straighten it out. Eventually I tracked the problems down to some unreverted vandalism on the 14th of September(!), I think I've now restored the affected paras to their last good state (which coincidentally was a vandalism reversion I performed then), with a bit of copy-editing as I was going through. Please have a look and see what you think (for the most part it's completely over-written your changes). David Underdown 13:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on September 22 2006 to Zionism

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours.

Next time, you'd be better off actually admitting your 3RR unequivocally. And, of course, avoiding 3RR at all: WP:1RR is better William M. Connolley 08:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

William M. Connolley 08:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks for only giving me 12 hours.Giovanni33 09:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, though, he did unequivocally admit it here, and probably would have self-reverted if he had been given an opportunity to do so. Anyway, 12 hours isn't too harsh! AnnH ♫ 13:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ann, but I'm happy with just 12 hours. I was just afraid of gettting a week! :)Giovanni33 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to learn your punctuation

From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style:

When punctuating quoted passages, include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations).

One of the cited examples:

Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". (Only a fragment is quoted; the full stop [period] is not part of the quotation.)

Next time, make sure your "corrections" conform to the accepted style, and especially avoid uncivil remarks such as accusing the person nice enough to clean up after you of ignorance. A.J.A. 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zionism - links

I don't think edit warring will help. There are too many of them, blindly subscribing to the same crazy idea. IMO, an RfC etc. is the only way to go. --Anonymous44 21:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see that an edit war can be useful in some cases, but that would be the case if, for example, we were only facing A.J.A. and Hummus Sapiens. But what we have now is nearly every - what should I call them - pro-Israeli (?) editor on Wikipedia (including, sadly, an admin and ex-member of the Arbitration Committee), espousing exactly the same absurd view (the ideology of, well, POV segregation and cleansing of articles), as if it were something they learnt at primary school. They are inevitably going to be in the majority. People such as Jayjg haven't been - and apparently aren't going to be - influenced by the discussion regarding that matter on the talk page (either because they believe in their own arguments or for other reasons) and we can't expect them to give up before sheer force either, especially as we don't have sheer force anyway. Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect that a continuation of the edit war strategy in such a situation can only weaken our position if anything. Formal Dispute Resolution could (and, I dare say, should) stop them; edit warring can't, in the long run. It's just a waste of time. --Anonymous44 08:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please consider joining me in filing an RFC over the Zionism links issue.

I'd like to keep this as narrow as possible, and focus only on the links section. If you're interested, could I ask you to provide me with:

a) a few diffs illustrating reversions on the article page that reflect bias on the part of career editors there

b) (if you feel like it) specific instances of incivility or bias you encounted on the talk page there.

Thanks, BYT 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASOPHIA&diff=78930244&oldid=76109703

Al

If it was integrity of the encyclopedia they cared about he would never have been banned. None of his severest critics ever tried the line that he was harming the encyclopedia as that would call into question one of the biggest problems with this project (and in my view the thing that will eventually kill it) - biased editing and protectionism. Some of the drivers for his banning have themselves been censured by the arbcom for biased editing and wheel warring but no action was taken against them. [3] Seems it's ok for some to violate procedures and abuse admin tools "in the heat of the moment" if they are editing a touchy subject. They don't seem to understand that wikipedia is full of "touchy subjects" with only those that edit them understanding the passions and problems raised. Either the rules are to be upheld or they are not. At the moment the rules are only applied if you have managed to get up the nose of someone influential.

You can follow this up if you wish but it will be wasted time as no-one cares and Al is doing just fine as he is. Sophia 22:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

She's right. See Centrx's response here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Centrx&diff=next&oldid=80361530 06:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Alienus was one of the most deadly edit warriors on Wikipedia. His response to any reasonable argument was to accuse his opponents of violating Wikipedia rules and edit warring from the outset, before they had even raised a point! His removal was a triumph for the organisation. There is indeed a God.

Deadly? I beg to differ, whoever you are. This disagreement is based on much interaction with the editor. Overall, his role was beneficial, esp. his edit warring--and his removal is, contrary to your point, suggestive that there is indeed NO god (which ofcourse there is not). Wikiepedia is better with Alienus than without him. But, he has never left. :) Giovanni33 19:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A prime example of what you can accomplish if you know how to do it. Good luck to him if he can manage to do it without drawing attention to himself. --Deskana talk 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Citizendium

Thanks for that. Hopefully it should address some of the real issues here. It might be fun to get involved but I don't have much time at the moment and I'm very unsure about editing under my real name as there are some real cranks out there and I have kids. Sophia 22:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Giorgio Orsini

Hi Giovanni

We have a problem with editing the article about famous 15th century Italian architect - Giorgio Orsini. If you are knowledgeable about this man or if you know people who know about him - please, be involved or ask other people to be involved in the discussion and editing of the article about him.--GiorgioOrsini 15:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Israel/Zionism

What do you mean by a national homeland? Please define what this would entail. And also, do you oppose Muslim states that have been created by conquest? Please do respond to this because I've never been able to hold a Chomskyite in civilized conversation for more than a couple of minutes and would honestly like to hear your point of view. No kidding here at all, I'm being serious I want to hear Chomsky's point of view up to debate as both him and Finkelstein refuse to reply to mail. I'm being honest-- logic will sway me. I'm not solidly stuck in my position about Israel, but using logic and avoiding emotional storytelling are likely to convince me if your view holds up.--Urthogie 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. First I'm not Chomsky or Finkelstein but their POV is similar to mine on many issues. But to explain my POV--and I hope I'm logical--I'm against all States. I'm not an anarchist, either; I see States as a necessary evil given the current state of human civilization. Some are better than others. None should ever be glorified, nor treated as an end, but rather as a means to an end, that end being peace, security for ALL, democracy, people before profits, equality ect (essentially progressive values). Note I'm an anti-nationalist. Nationalism, I hold as a reactionary ideology that doesnt service the best interests of mankind and leads to treating some people better than others. There should be no "me first" thinking on the individual or group level. They are all ethically repugnant and a prime ingredient to racism.

Of course States should never be supported when they rest on the oppresssion of others. I oppose all conquest and imperialism, past and present. As far as states created by conquest, what is important is current oppression, i.e. ending it,(esp. state-sponsored) that are in the bussiness of building based on conquest of others. This must be opposed equally in all cases, which a special responsiblity for those you can have the greatest effect in changing, stoping, i.e. if I live in the US, I have a special responsiblity to speak out against things this countries does (directly or indirectly as in the case of support for Israeli occupation).

As for the meaning of a national homeland, it could mean the country of origin and native land of a people who have a strong cultural connection and history within such a territory , a cultural geography. There are many ethnic groups who holds a long history and a deep cultural association different country or geographical regions, in particular where the national identity began. And, diffferent groups can live in peace side to side, with differenlanguage, cultures, co-existing with the same country, united under the common accepted cultural norms of democratic values. This does not negate a national homeland, only having it based on the oppression of others. Hence, I'm able to be for a national homeland for the Jewish people in the land of Israel while at the same time I'm anti-Zionist and advocate for a Binational solutionGiovanni33 06:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is your anti-State energy so focused on such a small country as compared to all of the countries around it which were formed by Muslim conquest. This is one part I don't understand. The histories of America, Australia, England-- they are not comparible to Israel. These are places that have commited genocide of millions. England had concentration camps. Australia wiped out certain tribal populations. Same with America.

I also find it strange that you think Israel is not very threatened by its neighbors. One of my biggest concerns is that Iran will develop nukes, and those nukes will fall into the hands of Islamist terrorists.

Also, I don't understand how your POV can be similar to Finkelstein, who supports Hezbollah, and at the same time claim that it's difficult to make a case against an Israeli state. If it's so difficult, why are you similar in your views to a man who supports organizations who want to eliminate the Jewish presence in the region?

Lastly, I think if you look at history you'll see there originally was a binational state (with UN approval), before Israel was attacked by its Arab nationalist neighbors from all sides. This was what everyone wanted-- binationalism (well-- to be specific it would be only one unique nationality as Palestinians weren't an ethnicity then) and a two state solution! The palestinians are actually not an ethnic group-- they are only a nationality because of the wars that have stemmed from the 1948 conflict. Israel originally wanted a two state solution, and now it is criticized by those who support its destruction. --Urthogie 18:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your not understanding, as you say, seems to be based on an acceptance of a false premise with your questions. For example, what makes you think that my "Anti-State" engery is so focussed on any one country, and why is size of the country even relevant? Actually, most of my "energy" has been against the US illegal invastion and occupation of Iraq. The logically relevant factors concern oppression that is current and on-going, and importantly, oppression in which one is contributing to directly, i.e. the country that im paying a large amount of taxes by living and working in (the US), which is directly contributing to the illegal occupation and oppression of a people, and thus doing so itself indirectly. This is not an academic question of history either. What you say about genocide committed by other colonialist and imperialist ventures in their formative period of nationhood is correct. That is history. Is it happening now? Does the US still have concentration camps for Native Americans? To bring it up, and point to them as if doing so implies that one can not oppose strongly what Israel is NOW doing (or anyone else for that matter), is to commit a logical fallacy known as "two wrongs make a right." They don't. Its also rather disturbing and weak to say others are doing this, so don't look at me (even if they were doing it today).

Not that I think it is relevant but I disagree with you that "Palestinians" are not an ethnicity. But, why do you think it even matters? This is what I find strange. An ethnic group is cultural (unlike race). That is, any human population whose members identify with each other, united by certain common cultural, behavioural, linguistic and ritualistic or religious traits, and have a name that unites them with that identity, which they claim as some cultural continuity over time. It is rooted in the idea of social groups makred by these attributes and affinities. Ethnographers and linguists use the term Palestinian as an ethnic group as well, to denote the specific Arab subculture of the southern Levant; in that sense, it includes not only the Arabs of British Mandate Palestine, but also those inhabitants of Jordan who are originally from Palestine and the Druze, while excluding both Bedouin (who culturally and linguistically group with Arabia) and ethnic minorities such as the Dom and Samaritans. In common usage, the Samaritans of the West Bank are usually referred to as Palestinian. Again, all this doesnt matter for me. People are people. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the state; politically an ethnic group is distinguished from a nation-state by a lack of sovereignty.

I also think you are wrong about the history of Israel being origionally a binational state. It wasn't ever. Israel's native Arab population were displaced, and equal political rights was never granted. Read the article about this: Binational solution

Finally, if you don't see how my POV is similar to Chomsky and Finkelstien, I say look harder because I see the similiarities. I've read them and heard them enough to know my view points are quite similar indeed. Note that similar doesn't identical. With all the problems and reactionary religious ideology of Hezzbola, they stand in the right in their fight against Isreal given the important distinction between the oppressed and oppressors. As far as feeling threatened, I should say so, as should be the case against all criminal, rogue states, the US included. Oppression breeds resistence and it creates many enemies. This is to be expected, no? I think people everywhere should rise up against all such criminal states. I see Israel, though, as only an attack dog, a military outpost of US imperialism that is used to help to keep the oppressed arab people in the ME in check. Giovanni33 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

At first, I was going to respond to this reply with a point by point rebuttal of what I see as your extremely naive interpretations of history, current events, and politics. But then I recognized that would be too overarching a conversation. So lets focus on one issue, to highlight how misguided your views are. You say the problem in Iraq is US "oppression".

The United States is responsible for less than one third of the violent deaths in Iraq.[4] The Iraqis are killing each other in a brutal tribal and religious civil war not because of the presence of the United States, but rather because of the lack of presence of Saddam Hussein, and a weak government that exists as a result of poor planning by the US. Bush did a great job deceiving the American people into this stupid war, but did a horrible job planning it. It was of course an unwinnable war, because they don't actually want democracy-- they want to support their various tribes and religious sects.

By the way. I'd like you to define oppression. You use this word quite often and I doubt you actually have a very concrete meaning to it, aside from using it for emotional charge. It seems to be your way of saying that two groups are fighting and one has more power than the other. I honestly don't support the underdog in all fights, so I don't automatically regard an unfair fight as unjust. That would be extremely irrational.--Urthogie 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Its late and I'm tired so I'm going to make this very short. Occupiers are fully responsible for what happens. They have no right, only responsibilities. Its funny how you say its not because of the United States, its because there is no Saddam Hussein. But, how did that come to be? By an act of the people of the country itself? No. And, why is it that Saddam Hussein can do something and the most powerful country in the history of the world can't? Sorry, but all the bloodshed in Iraq lies at the doorstep of the US. Its not poor planning, and being stupid, etc. Who is the naive one here? This is not the first time in history. About oppression, I sugggest you read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression. Next I reccommend you look up Imperialism, another "charged" word but one that is quite real. I don't believe the underdog is always right, but I firmly stand with the oppressed against oppressors, even if the former are not always ethical in their own tactics. I don't blame the victim. And, we are not talking about just individuals here, we are talking about systems of oppression.Giovanni33 11:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The US can't control the population simply because it is not a brutal dictator, and actually has the false idea that the people there are ready for democracy. Both of us agree the US shouldn't have gone there-- but you seem to find a way to call the US oppressors nonetheless. That's ridiculous. The problem in Iraq is the lack of a very powerful opressor-- there is no tribal leader in power genociding the other tribes, which would keep peace. The US is not oppressing them-- the Iraqis are oppressing themselves in the absence of an evil dictator. They are not capable of living peacefully without an opressive tribal dictatorship in power-- you would claim that the problem is the "opressive" US, but in actuality the problem is the inept US, thinking it could succeed. Only the most naive understanding of military history could lead one to the opinion that having a powerful military assures success in peace once the war is one.

So is it the US's fault that Saddam isn't there? Yes. Is the US oppressing anyone? Of course not-- it's trying to do the exact opposite, and failing at it.

You still haven't given me your definition of opression. You just linked me to a wiki article. Please provide me, briefly, with the exact definition you use when you say this word.--Urthogie 14:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I see, so the problem is that the poor invader is just too nice, and the Iraqi people are just too much barbarians, not civilized, and that is why there is so much death and killing, eh? If only the US were more brutal then the country would be stabalized, again? This reminds me of the old Imperialists "white man's burden" outlook. You even say:"They are not capable of living peacefully without an oppressive tribal dictatorship" I disagree and find your thinking extremely naive as it pertains not noble but mistaken US motives and policies, and your view of the Iraqi people even bit racist. We agree we are talking about over 655,000 dead, constituting 2.4% of the population in Iraq. Using the same 2.4 percent on US population, it amounts to 6.72 million dead in the US. Yet, its because the US is being too nice? And, we do care?! Then why is there more torture in Iraq now (on an official level under the US puppet govt) than during Saddam's rule, if our occupation is not infact itself extremely brutal? The fact is the US didn’t care about security issues as it pertains the interests of the safety of the common people as much as they did care about securing control of the oil and establishing a base, as a test trial run invasion to maintain control of the M.E. It wasn't just lack of planning it was negligence according to priorities. The same reason why destroyed their safe drinking water and other basics, and even today its not up to the level it was during the pre-invasion conditions. This is indifference to things that didn't matter to them, such as the lives of the people. Much like how Israel will drop bombs on civilian areas. The US destabilized their country, disbanded their police and military, decimated through tons of bombs their infrastructure, and then neglected it and failed to put anything workable in its place--but its their fault their society is being torn part?

I do not believe that having a powerful military assures success. Imperialists are paper tigers and they don't have the ability to keep the masses of a country in revolt under their yoke for long. Empires are doomed to fail because they can't stand up to the spirit and determination of people to be free. And in the ultimate analysis, its people, not things, that are decisive. But, the question is, who is to blame for the violence in Iraq, including the sectarian violence? You blame the Iraqi's people themselves (like Bush). This is blaming the victims. I think this is backwards. The president try’s to blame the Iraqi people for their complete social breakdown the US destrucive forced destabilized the social fabric and basic infrastructure of the country? Not tenable. The responsibility rests with the occupation, and invasion, on the US for the bloodshed and continuing bloodshed. Just by looking the history and basis for the divisions, like other tribal divisions, we find the hand of colonialism implicated. Saddame Hussein’s own rule was the result of US imperialism (if you recall the CIA helped to put the Bath party in power in a coup in 1968, and involved in 1963), and supported the regime, esp. in the 80's. The current sectarian violence is also largely the result of the stage created by the US invasion. Sure, divisions and mistrust predates the US invasion but in the absence of a US invasion and in the absence of a dictator, we would not see the levels of violence we see today. This is because those who support the US invasion now become traitors. Before, families among different "enemy' tribes inter-married. Now they are divided as a result of the US invasion, with most Iraqi's wanting the US out, and saying that it’s worse off with the US there then without, including the sectarian violence. I'm sure you've seen the polls. A large majority of Iraqis -- 71% --want US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent. This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks. More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence. Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease. Some 78 per cent of all Iraqis think the US military presence provokes more conflict than it prevents and 71 per cent want US-led forces out of Iraq within a year. But, you know more than those who live there, right?

You will notice that I did not get into the details of the above arguments to support some of my claims with details, which will take more time that I have. However, you can find these details in arguments from the following articles: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3369 How the US set the stage for sectarian violence and encourages it: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=11948 http://quebec.indymedia.org/en/node/23750?PHPSESSID=b54265b1c98b367c670a9c1a70e94f60

As far as defining oppression, come on. Look at the first two paragraphs of the article on it, and then look up Imperialism. This is how I define and understand it. What objections do you have to these concepts as applied to this situation?Giovanni33 01:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"This reminds me of the old Imperialists "white man's burden" outlook. You even say:"They are not capable of living peacefully without an oppressive tribal dictatorship" I disagree and find your thinking extremely naive, and a bit racist, even."

It's funny how you were the first to bring race into the subject, and then accused me of being racist. No, the color of skin has nothing to do with a culture that is based on tribal divisions. But I suppose that accusing me of racism is a lot easier than actually arguing logically against my point. Anyways, moving on...

"We are talking about over 655,000 dead, which constituts 2.4% of the population in Iraq."

Do you really think I don't know how much they're killing each other because of our stupid failed occupation?

"Yes, its because the US is being too nice? Then why is there more torture in Iraq now (on an official level under the US puppet govt) than during Saddam's rule?"

Saddam has killed more people as a head of state than the US has killed in its entire war. That's a crazy fact: a leader who killed more of his own people than were ever killed by the occupier! Read: Human_rights_in_Saddam's_Iraq. There was more torture by Saddam's Iraq than by US troops. There was more killing by Saddam's Iraq than by US troops. Therefore, you have just lied: "Then why is there more torture in Iraq now than during Saddam's rule".

"The fact is the US didn’t care about security issues as it pertains the interests of the people as much as they did securing control of the oil and establishing a base, as a test trial run invasion to maintain control of the M.E"

This was likely their intention but they failed at it because of poor military planning. They have actually lost more control in the Middle East as a result of this war-- they have strengthened the religious tribal movements in the area.

"It wasn't lack of planning. It was indifference to things that didn't matter to them, such as the lives of the people."

OK, so lets take your position for a second. "The sole reason they're there is money and power." Then wouldn't it be in the interest of their greed to, I d'know, make money from a stable Iraq? To get power from a stable stronghold in the middle east that wasn't a stronghold of Islamic terror? The US wants submissive, oil-rich puppet countries. A full blown islamic mass movement, unrestricted by government, does not help US interests in the region. It's pretty basic logic. And I think your own reasoning counters itself.

"Much like how Israel will drop bombs on civilian areas"

What you fail to recognize is that states like Israel benefit from less terrorism. Why would they want to create a new generation of terrorists? Is there any concrete gain from bombing a civillian area? The poorer and angrier they are, the more likely Israel will be threatened. That's an established fact among counter-terrorists. You seem to have this myth in your head that randomly bombing citizens is what liberal democracies try to do, for apparently no reason but to create more terrorists. I can't blame you though, as you're constantly misinformed by the likes of Chomsky and Finkelstein.

"Empires are doomed to fail because they can't stand up to the spirit and determination of people to be free."

In the abstract I agree with this statement. But I don't agree with extending its logic to everything an empire does. The individual Iraqi citizen surely craves democracy. But Iraq's population, as a whole, does not. People join tribalistic groups and kill each other to run away from the prospect of freedom-- its actually a scary concept when you haven't had it for generations. The nazis, for example, often praised hitler because he made them "free from freedom". Your understanding of human nature is overly simplistic, and incredible similar to the Bush doctrine-- everyone is ready for democracy. Yeah, right. <-- bullshit

"You blame the Iraqi's people themselves (like Bush)."

No, I blame America. I made this clear already. It was a foolish war to get into because the Iraqi people are not capable of democracy at this point in time.

"This is blaming the victims."

First off, you have to recognize that the real oppressors at this point are the militant Iraqis. They were a bunch of rattlesnakes kept in check by an evil dictator. The true victims-- the average Iraqi people who are not killing anyone-- deserve no blame whatsoever. Only the US, for opening up the country, and the insurgents, for ruining it with their tribal and religious conflicts.

"Sure, divisions and mistrust predates the US invasion but in the absence of a US invasion and in the absence of a dictator, we would not see the levels of violence we see today."

Yes. I already made clear I oppose the entire idea of the Iraqi invasion. But I also oppose your whole myth that the US is oppressing anyone.

"I'm sure you've seen the polls. A large majority of Iraqis -- 71% --want US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent. This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks. More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence. Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease. Some 78 per cent of all Iraqis think the US military presence provokes more conflict than it prevents and 71 per cent want US-led forces out of Iraq within a year. But, you know more than those who live there, right?"

Uh..this is the definition of a straw man argument. I agree compeltely that its a failed war and the US is making the problem worse. You wasted a paragraph, I don't know why. I'm sure the Iraqis would love to hear your theory about how Saddam's rule tortured more people than the US, though :)

"ZMag"

I don't read publications by the New Left or by neo conservatives (they're basically opposites). Convince me with mainstream sources.--Urthogie 02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood your possition. But, since you blame the US for causing the increase in violence, sectarian violence included, then we don't have a disagreement on this point. However, your conclusion is that the US is not an oppressor even though they are to blame because it was not their intention but just incompentance in unleashing the "rattlesnakes." But, even if its just negligence and not intentional, is not culpability the same, esp. when one can reasonably expect this to happen based on intellgence reports? If I go into your house and open up a basket of deadly snakes and the snakes end up biting your family and killing them, but I was just careless and didn't think twice about the result--I just wanted to steal your goods in your house (and come back to steal more later), am I off the hook morally any less than if had I planned it? But, I will argue my original point, even though I can see how it seems contradictory. Imperialism frequently does backfire and usually has negative spill over effects based on some gambles but serves intelligent and purposeful imperialist goals, and does ultimately fail. They are doomed to fail, but they have their own logic and dynamics that drive them to their own grave. Right now I need to leave the office and go home and take care of things so making this case will have to wait.

About the articles, yes, they from the New Left, however they cite mainstream sources. I don't discount them off hand. The BBC article below is mainstream enough, which is where I had the impression that tourture in Iraq is WORSE then it was under Hussein. It makes this point and this is according to an even-handed senior UN official, who is the chief anti-torture expert, so its expert opinion. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1878099,00.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5368360.stm I suppose you will counter that even though it may be worse, this tourture includes sectarian violance, and we are back to the original point of dispute.Giovanni33 03:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• "I suppose you will counter that even though it may be worse, this tourture includes sectarian violance, and we are back to the original point of dispute." Earlier you said, "Yet, its because the US is being too nice? And, we do care?! Then why is there more torture in Iraq now (on an official level under the US puppet govt) than during Saddam's rule, if our occupation is not infact itself extremely brutal?" It seems like you've switched your view somewhat... earlier, you were saying the problem was "oppression" and you were sarcastically claiming the US was being too nice. Now it seems as though you recognize the problem was the ensuing chaos of the insurgents as a result of our failed military operation. So I don't feel as though we're going in circles. Perhaps we're getting somewhere, and can soon move on to the more contentious subject of Israel, using this as a launching point for analyzing that issue.

Oppression is not defined as ineptitude, but rather as unjust squashing of one's enemy. This is what Saddam did, but not the US. The US just failed in its mission and ruined hundreds of thousands of lives through its ineptitude.

• "But, I will argue my original point, even though I can see how it seems contradictory." The reason you insist on arguing your original point despite it seeming contradictory is because you are tied to the idea that everything is related to evil imperialism, and can't recognize that sometimes the failed means of government have a bigger effect on history than the government's ends. As I said before, this is a microcosm in the flaws of your argument about Israel-- which, unlike the US is pursuing a program of security rather than expansion and wealth. The flaws that it makes in this process are entirely unintentional. Like the US, Israel needs serious criticism, but it doesn't need more of this vilifaction as "imperialist, colonialist" that you offer, adding nearly no insight whatsoever into the depth of the conflict, and the various shades of gray that characterize it.

• Your metaphor about the snakes ignores the fact of the dictator. I'd rather have you steal from my house if you're gonna kill the murderer that's there. Assuming you can deal with the snakes, of course. The only problem is that america couldn't deal with the snakes, and wasn't even capable of it, and therefore never should have gone. it's going was not oppression. was it greedy/evil? sure. was it an effort to oppress the iraqis? no-- just the opposite. And that is a good microcosm of the complexity of history, politics, and current events that is distorted by the interpretations of the New Left.--Urthogie 03:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think our disagreement centers on the concept of "inept" as it pertains to US military actions. So lets forget about arguing about what oppression means and imperialism (and other loaded, charged words) and try to focus on some practical points. I ask to consider the difference of an actor who engaged in a kind of reckless neglect and lack of concern/care for the cost to civilians vs. intentional klling of them? I agree, its not directly intentional in the way that someone who just wanted to kill the people for the sake of their death, but then again, its not innocent error, either. "Inept" in this circumstance is the kind of neglect that has predicable knowlege of the consequences, and thus, is just as bad as if it the people were intentionally targeted. Its an academic distinction without a difference when the lives of the people are concerned: dead is dead.

True, the law distinguishes between premeditated murder and accidental killing. But, consider a "mens rea" analysis of criminal law. To quote law professor Michael Tonry:

::"An action taken with a purpose to kill is no more culpable than an action taken with some other purpose in mind but with knowledge that a death will probably result. Blowing up an airplane to kill a passenger is equivalent to blowing up an airplane to destroy a fake painting and thereby to defraud an insurance company, knowing that the passengers will be killed. Both are murder. Most people would find the latter killing more despicable" (Malign Neglect, p. 32)."

And both are murder even if the bomber regretted the fact that innocent passengers had to die in the second example. Nor would the bomber be absolved if he expressed regret for the slaughtered passengers and then did the same thing again and again. Or say the bomber doesn't know that passengers will be killed -- the bomb may go off in the luggage hold before the passengers board -- but is indifferent to the passengers' fate. Knowlege and intent are both morally and legally cupable states of mind. Reckless abandon as the kind we saw with the US invasion of Iraq to the concerns of the welfare of the people of Iraq, even if caused by what you say is "ineptitude" is not innocent. They were warned that this could if not would happen and proceeded anyway, even criminally with respect to international law. Its not innocent error and there is no practical difference between it and death and suffering caused by direct design to oppress people with intent to do so.

Admittedly the U.S./Israeli military could easily kill more civilians if it wanted to. But that doesn't refute the claim that there is a morally unacceptable disregard for the lives of civllians (the basket of snakes being opened). Is it worse to kill a person eagerly than out of indifference? If I robbed your house but didnt care about the mess I'd cause, including leaving behind the deadly outcome of my actions (knocking over the basket of deadly snakes), wouldnt this be the same as if I had planned to release the snakes if I could be expected to have known that my actions would result in the same? When you look at the kind of war the US waged, the kind of weapons it used alone (no matter the military failure)--we have to conclude that it held the civilian population in low regard, and found "acceptable" a large number of deaths. The same goes for how Israel treats the Palestinian people its in state-terrorism aimed against the resistance fighters within the occupation terroritories.

So, let's assume that civilians are not being targeted. It doesn't matter. The first wave of attacks by the US reportedly consisted largely of "dumb" bombs dropped or launched from long distances, and even current "smart" bombs hit their targets only 70 to 80 percent of the time. So our leaders know full well that the bombs will kill innocent people, indeed admit as much. By the principles of our criminal law, they are therefore just as culpable for these deaths as they would be if innocents were targeted. For details of this point see: http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/sep02herman.html Giovanni33 01:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You use several very deceptive metaphors. The US did not "blow up the plane" of Iraq. It simply attempted to defraud the insurance company, and then some crazy terrorists blew up the plane in the havoc that ensued. Now, on the surface, it's arguable that the US, with its multi billion (trillion?) dollar military budget, should have seen this coming in the planning phases. This view is not entirely unreasonable; it is in part supported by the obvious lies and misrepresentations that the US made to our nation and to the rest of the world as the Bush administration pursued the Iraq war.

However, what this view ignores is that the Bush administration is composed of people who are experts at misleading people, but who are utter failures when it comes to organizing a war. The Bush Administration not only stifled evidence that there were no WMD's, they also stifled views that clearly showed the Iraqi's would not welcome them with open arms. This is why I ascribe the situation to the inept pursuit of somewhat moral goals, rather than to the malicious pursuit of immoral goals. Although what you said was merely a metaphor, it exposes your prejudice when it comes to judging the US (and one can logically infer, Israel... but we'll get to that later, I suppose).

Now, about "robbing my house". If you want to break in with the plan of killing who ever has kidnapped me, go ahead. Go ahead and "steal" from me-- if by that you mean setting up a non-genocidal capitalist puppet government. It's a well known fact that stable puppet capitalist governments have a much better quality of life for their citizens than do stable genocidal dictatorships. The central issue, then, is of course the issue of stability.

Now, it's clearly not in the US's interest to have knocked down that basket of snakes. You might respond by observing how much it helps Halliburton or the weapons industry, but this is a very superficial and short term analysis. As far as power and money-- which is what the American government presumably wants-- the terrorists are extremely bad news in the long-term. I don't think I even need to explain why several Islamist mass movements gaining a huge amount of steam in the region is not good for our interests in the Middle East, or why having all of our troops stuck in Iraq makes it very difficult to flex our muscles at other foreign policy concerns like North Korea and Afghanistan (which seems to have been a failure as well).

It's simply a foolish mission that was poorly planned. That's what it comes down to. It had selfish goals that were actually also in the interest of the Iraqis. Poor military planning is what has caused all of these problems.

If the "dumb" bombs would have been part of a complex, comprehensive military strategy that would actually have toppled Saddam and brought peace afterwards, I would of course support them. In my view, a just war is one which minimizes civillian casualties. The "dumb" bombs, had they been part of a comprehensive, successful military strategy, would actually have saved more lives from Saddam then they had taken away from their explosions.

As you can see, a detached, logical analysis of the issue leads to a much more nuanced criticism of the situation and what led us there. What further disagreements might you have with my assesment of the Iraq war?--Urthogie 02:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Please stop the edit war as they never end nicely and any reasonable discussions get lost in the crossfire. Sophia 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nazism and religion and Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

You are already in clear violation of WP:3RR - take a break before you get blocked. - WeniWidiWiki 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me where I have violated the 3RR rule? I don't believe I have. I, along with others, are simply removing original research, which the other party keeps replacing. I have already discussed and made clear on the talk pages the reasons why the text in question is unacceptable per the norms and standards of Wikipedia, and the other party has not addressed the problems (only make a small word change). I think that NPOV and OR, V, are more important rules than edit warring, provided that the latter is in service of the former, and provided that I do not violate the 3RR rule. Unverified, and Original Research, and violations of NPOV, should always be removed to protect the integrity of the project, even if it entails some unavoidable edit warring.Giovanni33 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Diff1, Diff2, Diff3. It is always better to have an RfC in instances such as this to get outside feedback and consensus, especially since the section you are removing is sourced. Discussion takes more than a unilateral statement on a talk page and summary removal. You could argue that the placement is undue weight or a fringe idea, etc. If you take the time to start an RfC and both sides make a statement I'll definitely give my opinion - right now all I see is edit-warring. - WeniWidiWiki 19:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. This will be my next step to try to resolve this edit dispute. The the reverts are there, but I thought the rule was not MORE than three reverts. So, I don't think I violated the 3RR.Giovanni33 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for joinging the straw poll and clearly stating your position. It is honestly appreciated. Vassyana 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe we should request an RfC or mediation. It seems like the consensus was that the topic should be minimized from the solicitation for opinions I posted. Or perhaps just politely point out on the talk page that consensus leaned towards minimizing that section. What do you think? Vassyana 03:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

See [5] and my request for you to follow that idea as well. Agathoclea 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I certainly agree with that idea. Thanks for pointing it out. It was getting crazy. :)Giovanni33 00:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though I am not seeking the action against you, nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 07:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

userlinks

You might want to use {{user5}} instead - less controversial. Agathoclea 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!Giovanni33 21:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

gonna reply?

If so, reply to what I said below this, so that the section doesn't get too long.--Urthogie 23:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Still no response.--Urthogie 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yawn

No. Because I agreed to keep the bit about him leading China. I made other edits in the meantime. As to the rest, you're being extremely petty if you want that trivial stuff changed back. John Smith's 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding original quote award

		The dialectical interplay of this matter-in-motion
		Awarded for outstanding original quote. El_C 21:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR?

No, I'm not. I reverted vandalism which does not count - you know this because you were told that when you commented on another report made against me. It's also on the 3RR rules page - so I've only made 3 reverts. Check for yourself on the CR page history. John Smith's 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Hi Gio, are you aware of this article Pagan influences on Christianity? I'm not too happy about the name as it falls into the "heretic" trap as it's a name given to non Christians by Christians. I'm pretty stumped for an alternative but thought you might have ideas. Maybe something that highlighted the synthesis aspects of early christianity. Thanks for your help. Sophia 07:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case

I have attempted to open an arbitration case involving you, please see [6]. Please don't be offended that I said you have a "history of edit warring", that is a statement of fact, and I bare no ill will towards you at all. I just want to see an end to the constant arguments between you and John Smith's, as I am sure you do. Thank you. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your efforts and I assume good faith, I do take exception to your adding, "I am attempting this RfAr not only to attempt to see some resolution of the conflict between them, but also to seek guidance on Giovanni33's repeated history of edit warring across multiple articles." It may be a fact but its no less a fact that is true of John Smith. But, you only mention me, which is one-sided, I think, and unfair.Giovanni33 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because I can remember you edit warring in the past, but John Smith's is relatively new. I will add words to my statement to explain as such. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 23:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

*Bangs head* Apologies, I thought he was a new user. Thank you very much for pointing this out to me. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 23:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have modified my statement. I'm sorry about that mixup, it was a mistake and bad assumption on my part. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I do appreciate that. I know we had a history of some conficts and edit waring in the past in the Christinaity related articles, but I've learned from my past mistakes and avoid such errors; I often times now just walk away from such content disputes. The edit waring with John Smith is in a different category, I think.Giovanni33 00:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it a different category? Why can't you just walk away? John Smith's 19:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you follow me around, it seems just to edit war with me. So, walking away is non tenable in such a situation.Giovanni33 19:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I follow you around? You seem to be forgetting you were doing exactly what you're accusing me of a while ago. If you walk away I will not follow you onto articles I have no interest in. Go on - try it. Call my bluff. Go back to your philosophy/religion pages and we'll see what happens. John Smith's 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you going back to following me? I called your bluff and it appears I was right. An article you've never been to before, your first edit is to go an undo an edit I made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=131750400&oldid=131729196 Giovanni33 19:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not to the same thing. I happen to go to one article only that you were on in which I have not been on before. What is your count? Three or four.Giovanni33 20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You "happen" to go? Since when did you have an interest in naval technology? Be honest - you were following my edits.

Anyway, I find it strange you're playing a numbers game. Also we've been having disputes for a long time - you could have walked away many times.

I'll say it again - call my bluff. Or is the real reason you won't because you actually don't want to walk away? That's what it seems like me. I think you know that if you walked away you wouldn't hear from me again, but you're trying to pretend you "can't" to gain sympathy from other people. John Smith's 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will, if you will, in the future. As of now, we should settle and find a resolution to the current issues given we have both invested a lot of time discussing them.Giovanni33 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rfcs

As requested by yourself and the arbitrators, I have filed Rfcs on the matters we are in dispute with. Please leave your comments here, here and here. John Smith's 10:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, can you please remember to express your comments on the other pages too when you have the time? Otherwise the RfCs will fail (I believe all parties have to involve themselves) and arbitration will have to be considered. Thanks, John Smith's 21:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Xiaodingjin

Xiaodingjin was warned by John Smith's to look at External Links policy, and he was also told to discuss his edits instead of just re-inserting his link. He had a good amount of time to read policy and to heed the warnings, but he failed to do so. If you feel the link is appropriate, then you may add it back, but I wouldn't be surprised if it would result in a content dispute later on. Nishkid64 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that is the problem. Since John Smith told him, he probably did not take him seriously. I think he deserves a second chance, or there should be more of a community consensus about perm banning him. I also think that protecting the article against anon IP's will take care of a lot of the distruptions.Giovanni33 23:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I will semi-protect the page, but your idea about getting community consensus for a perm-ban seems a bit in excess. Permanent blocks are handed out on a daily basis, and that's why administrators are entrusted to issue them in the first place. Anyway, page protected now--hopefully that will solve some problems. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, please forward the email to me. If other users are in support of the link, then it can be added to the EL section. However, as I stated before, Xiao was sufficiently warned and was even blocked by me for 24 hours because of his edit warring and 3RR violation. I'm not sure if I would unblock him, but I'll decide later on. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll forward the email to you. I'm sure something can be worked out to save him as a potencially vaulable contributor to the project.Giovanni33 00:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you both need to take a break from getting into these heated and unproductive "discussions". Mudslinging is not going to do anything, so I suggest you both ignore the Xiaodingjin matter for now, and just focus on the article. Remember, we're not here to get in arguments over useless matters. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Giovanni33 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Xiaodingjin is unblocked now, by the way. Thanks again for forwarding the emails to me. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Nishkid64, and you're very welcome. I'll advice him to ask before acting so as to stay out of trouble.Giovanni33 20:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning issued to John Smith and myself

Regarding your warning, Nishkid, I wan to thank you for your well considered and, apparently needed, intervention in this matter. I hope it works to reverse the recent trends. I have tried to avoid interaction and not responding, hence my removal of his constant messages to my talk page. I'll be extra careful to be extra civil, at least with my own conduct, which is all I really can control anyway. Thanks again.Giovanni33 21:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Nero

The section above says it: Enough! We shouldn't be spamming the article talk page. Therefore I move the discussion (or rather the postings, I have no interest in discussing this) to your talk page, as you seem to enjoy it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your desired edits here but we probably disagree as for the reasons. As to the fictional nature of the Bible and NT, I stand by that statement. It's a product of recycled myths that have been stripped of the more blatantly mystical parts and situated in more familiar geographical settings to ensure greater acceptability in an increasingly more skeptical world. So there is some historical value in these stories, parables and legends but they are on the whole fictional creations, fantastic propaganda, written by many unknown authors as far as a century or more after the events they describe, and not supported by secular sources--sales manuals for the new Christianity. You are correct there are different schools of thought on the matter, but the question of reliability encompasses the POV that the NT can be properly describing as a work of fiction. Its not your POV, but it is a legitimate POV. I refer to the radical school of New Testament scholarship, which is a part of the broader movement of critical New Testament studies. An example of such myths is the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh. Scholars draw what they describe as striking parallels between this account of a human sage and his interaction with the gods and the narrative of Jesus' life, and assert that both the myth and the gospel accounts derive from a common source of legends involving such supernatural beings as Osiris, Horus, Bacchus and Eanabi, in which virgin births, risings from the dead, journeys between Heaven and Earth, seclusion in wildernesses and celestial events in the wake of births, all feature as embroidery on an earnest recounting of events that never took place. For this POV, see: [7] And: [8] For those who wish to hold onto these alleged events based on faith, that is fine, too, but my reading of the evidence makes me fall into the camp that describes it as mostly fictional.Giovanni33 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I feel a bit sorry for that fact that your atheist faith is so weak that you need the most fringe views to bolster this weakness. However, I have no time for this. Good day, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't incorporate faith, but facts. "Atheist faith" is an oxymoron, whist religious faith is a redundency. Religious beliefs must rely on faith because they lack evidence and are counter to logic and known laws of nature. When faith is all you have, I call that extreme weakness, and because the nature of faith is blind, the potencial danger of this type of thinking for those that adopt it, underscores this weakness. Therefore, the feeling of being sorry properly belongs for those trapped in its grip--not with atheists who rationally and correctly reject supernatural claims that are seemingly irrational without some very good evidence other than "faith." No disrespect intended, of course, and have a good day too.Giovanni33 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No disrespect intended but I believe and I know it. You believe but you do not know it. Actually you kid yourself into believing that you know. Faith is not opposed to logic nor to laws of nature (but it may go beyond it) - actually laws of nature already require faith. Who tells you that the sun will rise tomorrow? You do not doubt it because you have faith. And rightfully so. As for your atheist beliefs, you made a few positive statements that I would consider quite unreasonable. You don't have proof for them - you go by belief as well. Last time I looked you even had a creed like statement (by Mr Gould) on your user page. But never mind, keep your faith, I'll keep mine. Let's keep this talk page free from our squibbles. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a confusion of scientific theories and the meaning of faith. The fact is that scientific theories (including its physical laws of nature) are always tentative in that we do not know for sure, but we can logically assume them to be true and hence believe logically. But we are always testing, always looking to see what makes best sense. If there is new evidence which no longer conforms to theory, then we disgard the theory or alter it to make it fit the best understanding of all the evidence. The degree of belief is likewise tied to actual evidence, with very strong theories conforming to everything we know (very strong and consistent evidence) termed "laws," followed by theories, and hypothesis.This is what my beliefs are based on--not faith. Faith is a belief that is maintained DESPITE the evidence, and/or without any evidence. That makes it not logical. My belief that the sun will come up tomorrrow, on the other hand, is prefectly reasonable based on logical assumption of all the evidence we have, based on theories that are supported by observations, etc. I could elaborate more on the difference of these kinds of beliefs, if need be, but I think most understand the difference, including you. Assumptions we all must make, true, but there is a world of difference between a scientific methodology and a religious one. Only the latter requires faith.Giovanni33 22:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh "we" are always testing too. The experiment is just not finished. It is you who is going against the evidence, especially in the issue of the historicity of Jesus. But what do I care that you are making a fool of yourself. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you are still in the testing phase. I had thought I read that you said you 'know" already.:) I hope the "tests" adopt scientific protocol, i.e. double blind controls, observation, etc., and logical principals such as occams razor. Giovanni33 23:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure after such tests you would be forced to disgard the beliefs that don't hold up, and then join me. hehe Giovanni33 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I could tell you about that you should better read comments properly before you talk about me knowing. Or about how using faulty methodology dragged over from another field will not yield good results. Or that Occam was a (shock, horror, evil, evil) Catholic monkfriar. But I guess that I shall better leave you to your island xylophone. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, now we come back to the real point and issue. What you call "faulty methodology" is none other than the methods of science, yes? Am I right? And, somehow scientific methods simply don't apply in this other "field." How convenient. Science is a method to find out the truth of the world around us. It is not restricted to only some "fields." You say they don't apply? Could that be because they prove that you lack evidence, and your beliefs are based on faith, not evidence? Just admit it.:)As I said that is fine, but don't make the claim that atheist beliefs are "weak" when the reverse is the case. Giovanni33 23:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and about Occam, no, he was not evil, although I'd say that for the Catholic Church heiarchy to force him to flee for frear imprisonment and execution for charges of "heresy" is the quite evil thing. Agree? Luckily, Ockham was only excommunicated, not murdered or tourtured like so many thousands of others who fell victim to the intolerance, inhumanity, and dogmatism of this religious institution, empowered by the State. And, yes, that that is indeed full of "shock, horror, evil, evil," as you put it. Giovanni33 05:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The methodology of natural science does indeed apply to natural science, not to history or philosophy, things you seem to be quite in the dark about. And indeed I feel sorrow for those tortured and killed by my own (but also for those killed by your buddy Mao) and even for William. However, indeed he was a heretic, but his errors were in no way as absurd as those of your ideology.

PS. And yes, I removed the falsified line again. Do not change the conversation afterwards. Or, if you want to, you should apply for a job here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We are talking the scientific method, here. You say it does not apply to history? Wrong. Have you heard of something called the social sciences? History belongs in it. See History. Natural sciences study nature, and social sciences comprise a group of academic disciplines that study human aspects of the world. The line between the traditional "soft" and "hard" sciences is not hard fast, either. Both employ the scientific method. If you make a claim about the nature of reality around us, its history, you will use a method that is consistent with the principals and practices of science, which again are just based on logical principals, accepting that material reality around us and trusting our senses to make the best understanding we can through logical experimentation, observation, testing, etc. The theory must conform to the evidence, not the other way around. Note that the method of science incorporates only methodological naturalism, and thus does not assume the non-existence of supernatural causes as would be the case for ontological naturalism. It investigates everything according to logical princials. Perhaps you should talk about your method, and then we shall see the error of its ways, lending to the error of your conclusions. P.S. adding a line to complete a thought is not changing conversations. If it in any way impacts your response, then amend your response accordingly.Giovanni33 08:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Resetting indent — nothing to do with me, but since you're both squabbling over the fact that Giovanni wrote something and Str1977 replied to it and then Giovanni added an extra line to the original and Str1977 removed it (suggesting that it could be placed elsewhere) as he didn't want it to look as if his original and intact reply was to Giovanni's modified post, and Giovanni reverted him, etc. etc. etc., why not try to find a compromise? You know, um, show the moral superiority of Christians who don't unnecessarily antagonise atheists — or do I mean the moral superiority of atheists who don't unnecessarily antagonise Christians?

I certainly wouldn't make an issue out of it, but I've seen administrators enforcing Str1977's position in a slightly different context — that of deleting something you've already written which other people have replied to. Apparently the correct thing is to strike it through. So it makes sense that an addition to a post that someone has already responded to should be shown in some way to be an addition. Accordingly, though without any real interest, I've modified the thread to show Giovanni's post as a separate post, indented further than Str1977's reply, and with the correct timestamp, since it was not correct as it stood. The original post was at 23:01; the addition was at 23:12. Anyway, as I say, it's nothing to do with me, and I don't intend to fight the issue. ElinorD (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense to me, and I don't see how Str can object to the way it reads now. May we both strive to be as wise as you've shown yourself to be here.:)Giovanni33 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Right, I have filed a formal request for mediation. I would appreciate it if you could sign "agree" so we can move on and have these problems resolved. John Smith's 10:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Request filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story John Smith's 10:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you have to sign off on it or it will be taken you rejected it. After all you are still editing wikipedia. It doesn't exactly take long to do - if you're serious about mediation you will take the opportunity. John Smith's 22:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. John Smith's 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Would you guys please work it out somewhere other than the 3rr noticeboard? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my sentiment.Giovanni33 00:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed on State terrorism by the United States

I still think the tagline needs to be totally disputed; you reverted this unintentionally, I think. Yaf 01:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was not intentional. I'll restore it. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story

Good evening (GMT time); just a little note that Mediation has commenced on the above case, and is being held at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story. Your input is essential, and the other party has already became involved.

Further instructions are provided at the mediation location, and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to drop me a message at my talk page (or by any other method listed here).

Kindest regards,
Anthøny 20:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC) testGiovanni33 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

How many times do you need to be blocked before you learn why we have a three revert rule...it's to prevent edit wars. Read the policy...if you revert again, I'll report it.--MONGO 19:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not violate the 3RR rule, and you are edit warring. I have asked that we stop the reverts until we have some consensus to the contested changes.Giovanni33 19:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Giovanni. What you keep adding severly violates NOR and indeed, you have violated 3RR. Therefore, you have been cautioned. I'm considering an afd anyway.--MONGO 19:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I double checked and I have not violated 3RR so that is not true. If I have show me the differences. I have reverted three time, just as you have. And, what I have added are referenced statements whose claims are supported by the sources that we should be reporting on. There is no OR, or SYn as I've shown on the talk page.Giovanni33 05:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Giovanni, I have reported you for another 3RR violation here--MONGO 20:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Missed message

Hey, just thought I'd tell you that a user has added a message for you to one of your archives[9]. Cheers. --Michael Billington (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

ARI

You might want to look at what's going on at Ayn Rand Institute. ThAtSo 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:State terrorism by the United States

Hi. Can you please keep it on-topic? Thanks. --John 19:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, but that is what I've been asking everyone else to do with no improvement. So, can't beat them....although I only made one comment about their off topic discussion. I do hope your are telling the others to keep it on topic because I really want to get issues settled with that article and this mis-use of the talk page is causes us all to go no where fast. I even reverted some off topic trolling but they insisted to keep it back, which was a big waste of time, a distraction, and ultimately distruptive.Giovanni33 21:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"So, can't beat them...." See WP:POINT Dman727 22:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I was not making a point. I was saying I gave up trying to get others to follow the rules, so since that has been allowed, then I might as well join in with my own off topic comment. Its a question of what is accepted and not having double standards.Giovanni33 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Better to behave well and set a high standard for others to follow. If you want to discuss another user's history, there are other places to discuss that.--John 01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I stand corrected.Giovanni33 17:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you were wondering about btw? ^^James^^ 03:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, James. I might find it interesting reading, a break from the norm.Giovanni33 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorporating each other's edits

If you had looked more closely, you might have seen I worked to incorporate and nicely format some of your recent additions, and was doing more until I was stopped by an edit conflict - your revert of my changes, including formating and spelling corrections, accompanied by an edit summary condemning me for reverting.[10] Please try to work with others. It is pointless to try to edit by reverting. It would probably be better to just use the edit summary to briefly describe your edit instead of crowing about what a bad example I set. Anyway, I'm done for tonight. Cheers, Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that is what you were doing, and I take great objection to your comment that I should "work with others!" That is exactly what I was doing, and you FAILED to do. Fact: I worked hard to incorporate most of the many changes by the other side, even those I disagreed with. I addded changes I have discussed on talk, and opened up a new section to discuss the changes I made and why, and asked that we discuss this, working forward on more compromises. But what do I get instead for all this effort to work with others? Only to be reverted blindly no less than 2 mins later, staying that other version was better, clearer, etc.--when 2 minutes was not even enough time to consider my edits! No one can read that fast. What you reverted to was just the same old version, whiping out all my edits, except for three additional references I added. And, I'm sorry you did join in with this very poor edit editing behavior that in my opinion is not becoming an administrator.[11]. I am done for tonight, as well.Giovanni33 03:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Giovanni. I've noticed you've not commented on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story yet. Since it's been about three weeks since mediation started, and mediation requires all parties involved to co-operate, I was wondering if you were going to comment? Mediation would be preferable to ArbCom, after all. Do you intend to comment there? Thanks for your time. --Deskana (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to but last time I checked the whole thing was postponed. If its back up, then I'll comment there today. Thanks for letting me know.Giovanni33 19:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The mediator is currently unavailable but commenting now before he gets back may help speed up the process. :-) --Deskana (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks for helping in your latest edits! someone has to watch certain editors from blanking articles for their own POV I really appreciate your attention.Esmehwp 15:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI

just wanted to let you know that there are certain editors who have very narrow POV's and have been POV pushing for years now and do not act in good faith also they will spend most of their time on WP and force good faith editors into never ending discussions which only serve to wear them down these editors often can not be reasoned with as they treat WP as an adverserial arena where they, having a lot of free time will always beat any good faithed editor into giving up and moving on, i have found the best way to stop such editors is not to enter into discussion with them but instead simply revert the damage they cause while drawing the attention of more and more people to their behaviour. hope I was of some help.  ;) Esmehwp 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

regualrly inspecting such editor's contributions is also a good idea LOLEsmehwp 20:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection of state terrorism by the United States

I saw you messaged User talk:Phaedriel, however she will be out for a while; you may wish to notify User talk:Riana or User talk:KnowledgeOfSelf as they are both admins who know her. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

School of the Americas

Excellent work keeping up with Ultramarine's edits. Thanks for keeping wikipedia fair and accurate. Eclectek ^{C T} 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on George Soros talk page

I'm asking for a straw poll to settle the Soros discussion. Please participate. Smallbones 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

US Invasions

Do not copy the text of other websites and claim it as your own. At US invasions you have been copying the content of http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/victims.htm and solely modifying it to comply with MediaWiki formatting. It is still plagiarism and a copyright violation. Do not replace the content, again, or you will be blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong that its just been copied and pasted. Its been modified significantly and should be modified a lot more so. What is copied are only the skeletal frame work, but these is all referenced. But, I'll work on it on a sub page before replacing it so that it can't be said to be a copy vio.Giovanni33 23:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest that. A copyright violation will still be a copyright violation in your user space. If you need to work on it, you'd be better off working on it on your hard disk, and perhaps occasionally pasting your work into the article and using "preview", but not "save". ElinorD (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow your advice, then.Giovanni33 00:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI

You're the topic of discussion in a section of ANI. --ElKevbo 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll comment, there. These conservatives coming after me reminds me of that famous Mao quote whose point is that it's good to be attacked by the enemy. I guess in this case, ideological enemies. hehe I found the quote: "I hold that it is bad as far as we are concerned if a person, a political party, an army or a school is not attacked by the enemy, for in that case it would definitely mean that we have sunk to the level of the enemy. It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work."

To Be Attacked by the Enemy Is Not a Bad Thing but a Good Thing (May 26, 1939), 1st pocket ed., p. 2. Although, I don't think any WP editor is my enemy--just ideological opponents. The attacking is, indeed, a sign of weakness.:)Giovanni33 01:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Undoing a move

The easiest way to undo a move is to select the Move tab on the page the article was moved from and then selecting the revert link after the last move.[12] But that only works if there hasn't been any edits on the article yet. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

New Soros Poll

I put up a compromise solution on the Soros page and wanted to see if you could stop by and give it a yea or nay so that we can resolve the whole thing. Also, any other input would be greatly appreciated. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mongo's Arbcom in progress

You may be interested in this: User:MONGO/arbcom ... Seabhcan (Here we go again!) 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like Psychological projection to me. heheGiovanni33 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

From Bmedley Sutler

Hi, I have to get them converted to text files. They're all on paper now. Thanks for the message. Bmedley Sutler 01:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

Giovanni33, I have closed this as resolved, due to your self-revert. However, the case you are making for an exemption requires someone to closely examine the content dispute, which does not generally happen at WP:ANI/3RR. It's not blatant vandalism, where you would indeed be exempt. Had you not self-reverted, you would surely have been blocked (as may have been Ultramarine.) So, it would be wise to confine yourself to the talk page for a bit before proceeding.Proabivouac 02:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you G

Hey thank you for your comments here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_comments_on_article_talk_page Remember, us Time wasters, POV pushers, trolls...need to be shown the door Travb (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story

Good Evening (GMT time); the above case is awaiting your input at the Mediation location.

Have a nice day;

Anthøny 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, and sorry for neglecting this matter. I'll get to it right away. CiaoGiovanni33 04:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR discussion

The following discussion has been removed from the 3RR noticeboard. If you would like to continue the argument, please do so here. Kafziel ^Talk 12:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:MONGO (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [13] 07:45, July 17, 2007

• 1st revert: [14] 07:56, July 17, 2007
• 2nd revert: [15] 08:11, July 17, 2007
• 3rd revert: [16] 08:20, July 17, 2007 changes to using my name to "with one editor who insists on being unamed here"
• 4th revert: [17] 08:56, July 17, 2007 again to "with one editor who insists on being unamed here"

Giovanni33 knows that 3RR isn't an entitlement so I didn't bother to warn him. I asked him four times (here, here, here and here) to not put my name in the talkpage discussion heading and he repeatedly put it back and then added the silly "with one editor who insists on being unamed here" just to be childish. This guy edit wars constantly all the way up to 3RR and has been blocked by more than a dozen administrators including one as recently as June 29th, albeit he was soon unblocked since the page was protected. He was almost blocked again on July 12th and was given a reprieve since he self reverted.[18]. I feel that I had a right to not have him post my name repeatedly in the heading, especially after I had asked him numerous times (ie...argue about the message, not the messenger) to not put my name there. He is also currently sitting on the line on the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article with an initial installment and three reverts again.[19], [20], [21], [22]. This is par for the course. Giovanni33 sees the 3RR rule as an entitlement, he has been blocked and counseled repeatedly yet he doesn't seem to get it.--MONGO 14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a 24 hour block for both of them would do, MONGO seems to be doing his fair share of reverting as well, which I wouldn't be surprised is disrupting the talk page there. [23][24][25][26]--SevenOfDiamonds 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And article edits: [27][28][29] Geez. Talk about throwing stones in glass houses. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop following MONGO around. ElinorD (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop following me around? He vandalized my page, I understand you were using your discretion not to warn him. However then following me around, does not seem to help anything. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds is a sockpuppet, probably of a banned editor. I have asked him repeatedly to not wikistalk my edits but he seems to not know how to read. I have the right to remove my name which was posted repeatedly and deliberately even after I asked Giovanni33 to not do so.--MONGO 21:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO has since gone on to vandalize my talk page[30]. It seems perhaps they need a cooling off period. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Mongo brought this talk page incident to ANI already where the issue was resolved by another admin who told both of us to knock it off. Mongo seems persistent not to let go, and wants punitive action taken. No block is needed as this has been arleady been resolved. Admins on ANI reviewed the incident and consensus was that no block is called for, unless it continued. Read here:[[31]] This report seems to be POINT violation, and further distruption (I also note Mongo has still not bothered to talk about the actual edit conflict in which he reverted 3 times in less than 3 hours, with 3 other editors total. He claimed not to have time, but he does have time to bring frivilous and disruptive reports to this board and to ANI.Giovanni33 21:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing frivilous about you repeatedly reposting my name and violating 3RR after I asked you repeatedly to cease doing so. You are the POINT violation. You always edit war right up to 3RR, and in this case, you did so for the most stupid of reasons, so I guess the next stop is an Rfc on your actions.--MONGO 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The above difs show you doing quite the same. Again glass houses. Further you went and vandalized my page because I noted your 3RR violations?[32] That is not cool at all. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is frivilous for you, Mongo, to continue to disrupt the various WP boards with an issue that is done and over with, already handled by resolved by other admins. Don't be a baby. WP is big enough and its not a battleground. And, no I don't alwas edit war--again you seem to be describing yourself. You were edit waring with three other editors and went right up to 3 RR in less than three hours, with zero discussion about your conflict on the talk page. But, you dont see me wikistalking you, and trying to get you blocked by posting on all the boards, after other admins told you to knock it off, and go to your own corner. This report is thus frivious and distrupting WP to make a point.Giovanni33 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wake up call...I asked you 4 times to not post my name, yet you did so anyway, repeatedly...what you did was just to disrupt the project and to harass me. Don't misrepresent your actions.--MONGO 22:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You barked orders and were incivil, and ignored my repeated questions about what problem you had with my edits on the talk page, which as I explained, I felt were an accurate and fair representation of the situation and content dispute--you wanted to misrepresent the conflict which was just you--one editor--reverting (btw, you should not alter other editors comments on the talk page). Instead of explaining yourself and answering my repeated attempts to explain yourself--that is instead of assuming good faith--you attacked me and assumed "harassment." Still, even though you failed to provide any reasons, I relented, as I indicated on the page, and yet you still did not even address your dispute. You continued to edit war with three editors alone, maxing up your 3RR in less than three hours--while I asked you repeatedly on talk to address your objections. You already brought this up on ANI. It was resolved by other admins. They told you to back off, stop it, and go back to your corner. WP is a big place. Yet, you don't seem to get the point. Perhaps you need a block for continued disruption? This issue, as I've said, had been resolved as of last night by other admins from ANI. Bringing up a solved issue just to generate further conflict on WP is distruptive. Block are not punitive, they are preventive.Giovanni33 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) shows up above with 3RR as well. Seems a block is in order. As for the other incivility alleged, it seems we have stalking and personal attacks by SevenOfDiamonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and defense by MONGO. Collateral damage to the problem created by user:Giovanni33. --Tbeatty 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes MONGO was defending himself by vandalizing my talk page ... how serious is anyone suppose to take that? He has already been warned by two other admins anyway, so I think that says more then your vandalism in defense claim. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the history. You posted a troll notice immediately after he left a message (that you reverted) on your talk page. After seeing your actions, I think he was spot on and your personal atack was unwarranted. --Tbeatty 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is MONGO's original comment [33], Here's the reversion and snarky edit summary [34] and immediately you followed up with a troll warning [35]. I think it's pretty clear who the troll is. --Tbeatty 03:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Commment Giovanni, it seems that every time you breaking the 3RR rule and get reported, you show up here to explain to administrators that "no block is necessary". It would be appreciated if you could 1) stop breaking the rule, especially over something so petty as your latest violation, and 2) leave it to administrators to decide on the necessity of a block. I'm personally not going to take any action (I've recently been leaving messages on MONGO's page), but I wouldn't object if another administrator does. ElinorD (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to condone his actions but Giovanni was right when he said the issue was resolved on the AN. It looks to me like MONGO is board shopping. He didn't get a block on the AN/I so he came here to get one. Quite frankly I find such behaviour bloody rude. If he's not willing to abide by the admin's decisions on the incidents noticeboard then why bother posting a complaint there? My advice to MONGO. Let the matter drop already. My advice to SevenOfDiamonds - take the stupid termplate off the top of your talk page. Matter settled. My advice to Giovanni, limit yourself to less than one revert a day then you'll never need to explain yourself here again.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is a 3RR violation report, which appears to be valid. All this extra bull doesn't belong on this noticeboard. - Crockspot 23:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the point is, this 3RR violation was already reported at the AN/I and the matter was resolved by me deleting the crap form the talk page in question, changing the header to somthing acceptable to MONGO, and telling them both to knock it off.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You failed to act to do something about this guy and his disruption at AN/I, so yeah, since no one there wanted to do anything about this I had no choice really but to bring it here. That you think that your word should be the final word and that I shouldn't be able to seek other methods of having this editor dealt with is, well, "bloody rude". Enforce the 3RR and send the message that termangent editing where I repeatedly ask another editor to cease from posting my name in a talkpage heading and he does it anyway just to POINT the issue isn't something we have to tolerate on this website.--MONGO 03:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

She did act. She did do something about it. She told us both to knock it off. Apparently, you don't care what others think. You only do what you want to do, and "damn" what the community thinks? See this on his talk page where he is cursing at admins in general:[[36]]. Mongo, you do not come here with clean hand--even if you had a valid point, once long ago. Maybe I'm missing something but did you not violate the 3RR rule by undoing my edits on the talk page 4 times yourself? The fact is that I was only restoring my talk page comments you removed, and only because you refused to communicate, and giving me a reason that I asked for. I explained my self, and then accommodated your request by changing it. Finally, I let you have your way. You could have chosen to instead discuss your differences--in particular the actual content of the article-- which was my goal. Instead you continued to edit war (with three editor), with no discussion, and in fact artificially create conflict---and then run with it, getting as much mileage as you can.

Civility goes a long way--unless you goal is to accomplish something else? One could easy conclude so....Most editors on WP, esp. senior ones, and admins, would have been able to avoided all this completely unnecessary bickering and wasting of everyone’s time by simply talking about why you did not like my talk page heading, for example. (I did ask several times but you ignored it), or letting it go after it was a moot issue, since I gave in. Most people would have dropped it when the Admins on ANI resolved by removing all the off-topic stuff (which meant ALL your contributions to the talk page, I might add). A senior editor actually interested in improving this encyclopedia, or this article would have acted in a constructive manner by actually talking about the actual content dispute. Still, you choose to ignore that, and continue on with what everyone told you to stop already. When you ignored Theresa request to drop it already, another admin and beacrat tried to close the discussion, as it was serving no useful purpose, anymore, stating, " issue resolved, lets leave it be,"you reverted him, and in a threatening tone, no less:[[37]] Again, this shows contempt for the community, just as you show contempt for other editors here, esp. if they happen to disagree with you. When I asked you to explain yourself, you refused, and only kept shouting demands.

This arrogance and incivility is a chronic problem. Even when I let you get your way on the talk page, that was not good enough. You took it to ANI. And, even then when admins dealt with it appropriately (what good is a block that stops discussion? Besides you'd have to be blocked, as well, then), it was not enough for you to move on, still. They had to tell you to knock it off, and essentially go to each of our respective corners and cool off. But you defied them, too. Now you come here to seek a block way after the fact that this is long done and over with, solved---and its only you who continue to beat this dead horse, and force everyone else to deal with this, long ago resolved issue. This is classic disruption. And, when other admins disagree with you, and point out that I am right about this point, you call them rude?! Make no mistake, I am not perfect, and I admit fault. But do you ever admit being wrong, Mongo? No, you only attack others, when its obvious your hands are very dirty. Now the more you dig, the more dirty you get. I'm trying to help you from digging yourself into a hole you can't get out off. I strongly recommend you drop it, move on, and reflect on how to be more constructive moving forward, esp. in dealing with conflicts. The point is not to escalate but to defuse. Why are you here anyway? Are we not all here to write an encyclopedia? Let get to it. Surely, you don't need to have to be blocked before you get the point, since that defeats the purpose (unless that is not why you are here?)Giovanni33 06:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not chastise MONGO for calling me rude, when I, in fact called him rude and he quoted my own words back at me. (No need to reply to this message, just bear it in mind for the future)Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen a more disgusting line of insults and transagressions in my life...you are so outrageously mistaken it is comical. I should have done an indef ban on you long ago, at the same time I was banning all your sock accounts.--MONGO 08:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As nor have I with your repugnant transgressions, which far surpass anythign else I've yet to see with any established editor. You will note that different, though, between my claims and yours: you only shout hollow proclamations with your attacks, while I document, prove, and comment on your unacceptable behaviors, which many other editors likewise condemn. Your weak ploy of pointing out socks from last year is not fooling anyone.Giovanni33 18:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I don't like to counter other admins, so I'm not going to go beyond anything Theresa said. But I'm this close to blocking you for quite awhile for your constant edit warring. There is no reason Wikipedia should put up with this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree with you regarding edit waring, but I have to say that the point applies twice as much to Mongo than it does for myself. Having said that, I'm going to self limit my reverts to 2 as my personal max (and even then, its my least perferred option. I think edit waring is bad, but its non-cooperative, combative editing behavior such as Mongo's above, that result in edit warring. I'll certainly do more on my end, but I hope he also takes the advice I and others have been giving him. In his case it seems to fall in deaf ears.Giovanni33 18:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Notice of trolling and harassment

I just put this message about trolling and harassment on the administrators noticeboard. Link Bmedley Sutler 03:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Alledged "OR" Section that was repeated blanked by without any discussion on talk. Judge for youself if its OR

An example (blanking three times in a row against three different editors)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=146022799&oldid=146021931
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=145827861&oldid=145825656
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=146020069&oldid=146012238

Over 17 established editors agreed to include the material from both sides of the pov fence, for my addition below. Yes, even Mongo reluctantly agreed if I kept it brief (but later changed his mind to agree with these friends who are blanking it). During the discussion only one editor opposed, and now we have him, and his friends join in with blanking attacks, something that takes place regularly on this article when there is too much progress beign made. The same group. I regard this as objectively vandalism: wholesale and repeated blanking of soured material with bogus claims such as (OR), over and over, without even any attempt to gain consensus for its removal. Again, I'm assuming good faith, which is why I ask for an explanation so I can understand how it can possibly not be outright vandalism, but really OR as he claims. The editor has so far failed to explain, but I insist that he must clear up this or else that is more evidence of bad faith editing, pointing to this being vandalism not only in effect, but in intent. Now the article has been locked from editing for 2 months, and progress is put on a halt again, meanwhile all our work is removed by a minority of editors who seem intent on disruption of this article they wanted deleted but didn't get.

Asia

Japan

Main article: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Some legal scholars, historians, other governments, and human rights organizations have accused the United States of having committed acts of State terrorism as a result of the nuclear attacks against the Empire of Japan at the end of World War II. The 'atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki', remain the only time a state has used nuclear weapons against concentrated civilian populated areas. Some critics hold that it represents the single greatest act of state terrorism in the 20th Century. Some academics also consider that these bombings represent a genocide.

The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification for them, has been subject to debate. In particular, the claims that these attacks were acts of state terrorism remain a matter of controversy. However, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."The arguments center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Specifically, the fact that the Target Committee on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. They also center around claims that the attacks were militarily unnecessary, and transgressed moral barriers.

Historian, Howard Zinn writes on the point: "if "terrorism" has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," writes Professor Mark Selden.

Similarly, Michael Walzer wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."

Zinn, quotes the sociologist Kai Erikson:

“ The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point? ”

Mark Selden, a professor of sociology and history at Binghamton University and professorial associate in the East Asia Program at Cornell University, author of “War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century (War and Peace Library),” writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively 'the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."

Professor Selden writes: “Over the next half century, the United States would destroy with impunity cities and rural populations throughout Asia, beginning in Japan and continuing in North Korea, Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan, to mention only the most heavily bombed nations...if nuclear weapons defined important elements of the global balance of terror centered on U.S.-Soviet conflict, "conventional" bomb attacks defined the trajectory of the subsequent half century of warfare." (Selden, War and State Terrorism).

Heads of State have also repeated the claim. President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez paid tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, calling the dropping of the A-bomb, "the greatest act of terrorism in recorded history."

Richard Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism. He states that “The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism.” Falk discusses the public justifications for the attacks, as follows:

“ "Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation....the public justification for the attacks given by the U.S. government then and now was mainly to save lives that might otherwise might have been lost in a military campaign to conquer and occupy the Japanese home islands which was alleged as necessary to attain the war time goal of unconditional surrender..."But even accepting the rationale for the atomic attacks at face value, which means discounting both the geopolitical motivations and the pressures to show that the immense investment of the Manhatten Project had struck pay dirt, and disregarding the Japanese efforts to arrange their surrender prior to the attacks, the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude, particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy. As Michael Walzer putis it, the United States owed the Japanese people "an experiment in negotiation," but even if such an intiative had failed there was no foundation in law or morality for atomic attacks on civilian targets" (Falk, State Terrrorism versus Humanitarian Law in War and State Terrorism). ”

These claims have prompted historian Robert Newman, a supporter of the bombings, to argue that the practice of terrorism is justified in some cases.

"BLP" issues on Stan Goff!

Do you know about "BLP"? Look at these claims in Stan Goff's article. (there are many more) I don't have time to edit now, do you? "Goff narrowly graduated high school in 1969. He moved to a ratty apartment, worked part-time jobs, and spent his spare time drinking and taking amphetamines with members of a local motorcycle club, The Charleytown Sinners." "Goff was purged from Delta in December 1986 amid a massive fraud scandal, though the charge leveled at him personally (resulting in the suspension of his security clearance) was that he had sex in El Salvador with a former FMLN guerrilla on Ambassador Edwin Corr's bed at Corr's residence while the ambassador was out of the country" Goff is a good source for the US State Terrorism article. He was with the US special forces and directed the actions of some of the US controlled Death Squads in Latin America. Of course his article here is 'targeted'. Thanks Bmedley Sutler 23:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out, and I agree with you. I cleaned it up a bit, but you might want to take a look over to see if there are more BLP concerns. Its amazing all this stuff was in there with no citation, to boot.Giovanni33 02:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tip

Ignore the baiting. Your block log keeps coming up as a means to bait you into saying things that can seem like a personal attack or rant and then be reported. If someone posts your block log, post the opening paragraph of ad hominem and tell them you will be glad to respond when they decide to address the topic. If they do it in response to your question without answering, post the opening paragraph and again politely ask them to address the question. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. But, I feel that the community should not tolerate the misuse ot the talk page with off topic comments that are in no way releated to a resolution of the problems of the article, and are only forms of personal attacks. Yes, we can ingore them, but I think a they should just be removed and not tolerated. WP seems to be ignoring more and more one of its core poicies related to being Civil and NPA. On articles that are esp. prone to such violations, its time that editors say "enough is enough," and not allow it to continue. Indeed, when I removed it, it was just restored. I plan to find out what the consensus is among non-involved neutral admins on this question. What would be the appropriate board for this question?Giovanni33 03:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up indent

Would you please remove the indent on this edit? It's hard as hell to read on my browser. I'd do it myself, but I don't want you to think that I'm screwing with your comment or anything like that. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Done.Giovanni33 09:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A 'Barnstar' for you.

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award you this star (why do they call them 'barn' stars?) for fighting the 'disinformation' campaign from the Bushistas! Link You are an inspiration. Bmedley Sutler 01:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story

Good Evening (GMT time); the above case requires your input. Can I ask you to keep checking back, and perhaps (if you've not already done so), watch list the page? It does get frustrating for both John and myself if you need to be actually asked to give your opinion whenever it is needed.

Thanks for your understanding.

Kind regards,
Anthøny (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I see this--for the first time. It got "hidden" under that BarnStar above, left at the time time, so I didn't see this notice. I was waiting for instructions about the next step. I'm sure I would have seen this by the end of the day. I'm at work and its busy here so I only glanced at it earlier, and saw the barnstar above, and the last message about the user check below, which I responded to.Giovanni33 22:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

Came back unrelated for those concerned, not a big surprise to me, I had a feeling I was not someone else and pretty sure I was not Giovanni, sometimes I feel like Tom harrison, but only in spirit. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had a feeling I was not someone else too. But at least now I know a good editor lives in Big Sur. I will be going camping there soon.Giovanni33 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story

This case has been closed as unsuccessful. The closure was enacted on 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC) by AGK (talk · contribs); the reason given for this was: failure to participate by one of two parties.

Kind regards,
Anthøny (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's too late now - it was closed because you weren't participating properly. You had plenty of time to do what you needed to do - it's not as if you were taking a wikibreak. You kept having to be prompted to get involved, etc - it was just too much for AGK to do. His time is important to him. If you were serious about mediation you would have focused on it.

I've asked Deskana to file an arb request, because at least then if you get distracted by something it won't hold the process up. John Smith's 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How was I not participating properly? I was asked what to do, and was told I need to afirm first. I did that. Then I waited for the next step.Arbitration is only after mediation was tried. I don't even see it started yet, other than obtaining agreement to start, which I did. What else was I supposed to do? No one told me, or directed me to the procedure. I can't read minds.Giovanni33 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, John's said it all; however, in response to your (inappropriately placed, by the way) query at the case page, my answer is located here ~ Anthøny (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

First, read what AGK posted on the mediation talk page. Second, all instructions were clearly listed on the mediation page.

As to arbitration, if you can't be bothered to get involved with mediation properly I think that counts as having tried mediation. What, do I have to list it again only for you to get distracted by another page dispute? As AGK said on the mediation talk page, mediators aren't emissaries to keep prodding you with a stick to do something. They don't close cases lightly. John Smith's 21:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How was I not participating properly? I was asked what to do, and was told I need to afirm first. I did that. Then I waited for the next step.Arbitration is only after mediation was tried. I don't even see it started yet, other than obtaining agreement to start, which I did. What else was I supposed to do? No one told me, or directed me to the procedure. Arbcom would be rejected for the same reasons as it was before. Its premature. It seems you are not interested in mediation, anymore? Because on my end, I am, however, I can't be expected to know how to properly proceed with it if I'm not given instructions. When I was asked what I needed to do to get it started, I was told to I needed to "affirm" it again, so they can determine if anything has changed since then. I did affirm and then waited for the next step. Nothing was laid out clearly, and I did look. I don't need prodding, I only need instructions.Giovanni33 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to make it sound like I'm not interested in mediation. I was, but you didn't treat the process with respect. I'll say it once more, as AGK said it wasn't up to him to run around prompting you to do something. All instructions were up on the pages in question. I worked it out, and I followed them. But you prefered to get involved with some other disputes, rather than finish an existing one off.

If AGK himself has closed the case, citing your lack of participation, it has nothing to do with me. I am only trying to explain what happened. I have nothing more to say on the matter. John Smith's 22:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are not intersted since you say that you want it closed and do arbitration instead. I'd say that counts as not interested. As far as AGK's claim, I pointed out its false, as far as willingness goes. However, again, I can't be expected to know the process unless someone points out how to proceed. The little instruction I was given I followed. I was waiting for the next step. What we have here is a failure to communicate. If you are willing to communicate about where I should respond, then I'd be happy to do that.Giovanni33 22:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent what I said. I didn't want mediation to be closed - the case was closed by AGK. Now that has happened, I am not going to go through with this again because I doubt your sincerity in going through mediation. You are not a newbie, you are a seasoned editor who doesn't need his hand held. You spent plenty of time editing other pages, yet gave little attention to the mediation page.

As mediation has been closed the only avenue left therefore is arbitration. It isn't because I want to do it especially, it's because I'm tired of this dispute going on and on. Any process which is reliant on your participation is a bad idea - it's best to leave it to a third-party who won't get distracted. John Smith's 22:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your wants are determined by your request here. You dont want mediation to continue (for whatever reason) is clear by your statement above. It appears your reason is failure to assume good faith ("doubt your sincereity," as you put it). But, nonetheless, if you are going to reject mediation, then that means you don't want to do it. If you do, then you would accept it it. And, yes, I am a newbie for mediation. Its my first one. I think that counts as a newbie. As far as other articles go, they don't distract me if I know the mediation is moving forward, and requires somethign of me. I was waiting to be told what I had to do next. The only instructions I received were to "affirm." Did that. What next?!?Giovanni33 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? You had a chance at mediation - you blew it. There is nothing to continue because it's over. You rejected mediation because you weren't taking it seriously and it was closed.

"What next?" I don't know - maybe follow instructions on the talk page? Maybe watch the pages to see when comments are put up there? This was my first mediation case as well, yet I worked it out. You're not a newbie to wikipedia.

By the way please stop commenting on my talk page. I consider this matter at a close. John Smith's 22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So in other words you are not interested in discussing this or mediation after all? Exactly what I was saying, then.Giovanni33 22:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying I'm tired of you wasting my time. John Smith's 22:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't waste your time. I am waiting, as well. Again, failure to communicate, and now, an unwillingness on your part.Giovanni33 22:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Giovanni - the case is closed. I'm now going to ask you to stop badgering John: this is a personal choice, on my part, to close this case, and it has nothing to do with John's conduct, participation or otherwise resultant of his contributions to Wikipedia ~ Anthøny (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Badgering him?! I am responding to the message he is leaving me about this. Am I not supposed to respond back on his own talk page, when he leaves me a message on my talk page? I call this communication, not badgering.Giovanni33 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Help me start a category?

Categories seem to be a very good way for people to find related articles to work on. There are 100's of categories, but none specifically perfect that could include Abu Ghraib, Waterboarding, CIA Coups, SOA, NORTHWOODS, Atomic Bombing of Japan etc.

I want to start a category named something like : 'CIA, USMIL, USFOREIGN POLICY CONTROVERSIES'. That could cover Pentagon's Domestic Surveillance Program too, yes? Can you suggest other names for the category? Thanks Bmedley Sutler 02:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a good question. I suggest further brainstorming as many umbrella concepts, with other editors of like mind (maybe a RfC, to get more editors with ideas?) Then we can find a few that both fit and are acceptable. Some ideas just to top of my mind (and I'm just brainstorming here): US covert actions, US imperialism, US counter-insurgency, low intensity warefare, reactionary state actions, state misconduct, abusive state policies, abusive state practices (US), illegal state actions (US), crimes of state (US), reactionary political practices by the US government, "War on the people,' "war on the poor,' CIA operations,....Giovanni33 04:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting very discouraged

I feel like Sisyphus. Every single article that documents America's misdeeds has a team of 'Spooks' and 'POV warriors' protecting it and 'running interferance'. If people like you weren't here, the Waterboarding article would surely claim that it is 'good for you', and Abu Gharib would claim that it was fun hijinks just like college because Rush Limbaugh said so. America dropped rose petals on Japan, not atomic bombs! The spooks have their own phony fake 'experts' like Indur Goklany and RJ Rummel but complain about Chomsky? Absurd. They have their own adminstrators too. The administrator who refused to add the documented info on the atomic bombing of Japan brags about being a 'classic liberal' (liebertarian)! I'm very discouraged. I edited very little in the last day. How do you keep motivated when the truth is losing the battle against Spooks and POV Warriors? Bmedley Sutler 19:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction, if it weren't for editors like us, those article would not exist. They would have been deleted. Bu, yes, I understand. However, if you know that its to be expected--after all there is a concerted effort by well funded and powerful forces to wage an information war, and white wash critical information--then it will be easier to accept and understand that its part of the experience here. But, the good news is the the rules are on our side, and thus well sourced, reliable sources must be given a voice per the rules. Sure, the article will be attacked and the information will get blanked by apologists to the empires crimes, but this is par for the course, part of a class struggle happening on a world wide scale, only here its in the information areana. Anything worthwhile is never going to be an easy walk in the park. :) To win one must take a long term view, and be persistent but civil (make sure to follow the rules always--never violate the 3RR rule), and regularly check those articles to see if the vandals struck again. Unlike the typical attack, where vandalism can be quickly and easily recognized and thus reverted by any editor, these types require active monitoring. If you are outnumbered, just bring attention to the isssue on the talk page, and perhaps bring it to yoru user page too. Others will see it and come to investigate. Again, the rules are on our side, but as they say "the wheel of justice turn slowly." Organization is important too, networking. But always be civil, and assume good faith (maybe these folks are honest and just have been brainwashed? hehe). But, whtever you do, don't let it stress you out. WP is better for editors like ourselves being here to keep it honest, and we only really lose when we give up. If you set your expectations accordingly, it helps, to not be disaponted.Giovanni33 20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the encoruragement. I made a few edits ouside my regualr interests so far, and I think that is good for me too. I'll do some more to stay sane. I'll add some more to Big Sur, my favorite place in America. Administrator Mongo accused me of being a POV warrior or something, and I looked at some of the Spook's edits like Ultramarine, and he doesn't have a single edit other than POV's! It's OK for the Spooks but not any body else! Bmedley Sutler 06:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your eyes

Please keep your eyes open on this article. Ultra just renamed it to some thing ridiculous that no one would ever look for it by. I changed it. He no longer deserves 'AGF'. I will edit more later tonight. Link Bmedley Sutler 01:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

old friend

Cheers! ;) Gwen Gale 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

Hello Giovanni33, I am writing to you because, as a party to this case, your input is required before mediation can begin, to do with an offer by an experienced non-Committee user to mediate. Please see the Parties' agreement to Tariqabjotu's offer section and provide your input, so that this case can progress. Further elaboration is provided at that link. Cheers, Daniel 08:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In case you have not already noticed, I would just like to inform you that the mediation has begun on its talk page, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2. Please issue an opening statement whenever you get the chance. -- tariqabjotu 02:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Unassigned

According to this: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Open Tasks, it looks like your mediation request has not been assigned to anybody to handle yet. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Giovanni33 18:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not contributing to mediation

Giovanni, you're doing it again. It has been 4 days since the mediator asked you to put your views across on the medation talk page. You're editing wikipedia every day - you have plenty of time to do it. If you don't do what you're supposed to the mediator will probably close the case as happened last time.

Are you even watching the mediation page??? John Smith's 12:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of time? Don't make up stuff. Im super, super busy. I've only made very quick, fast edits, daily (my addiction). But, I'll have some time to do it very soon.Giovanni33 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You're only being asked to make very quick, fast edits. Seriously it took me about 2 minutes to type out the responses. You need write no more than I did for each point. From your contrib history you've written quite a lot over the last couple of days - I'm not making anything up. John Smith's 00:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What I've written only took 2 mins, and little thought. For this case, I'd have to review the arguments (its been a long time) and then figure out how to properly reply. You're right it may take 2 mins, but I doubt it. I think it will take me at least 20. I'll get to it in the next few days. Either that or my name is mud.Giovanni33 00:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

See, I told you it would take 2 minutes. John Smith's 13:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

The conversation is in full-swing. Please make sure you have the page bookmarked so you know when to post. This is just a friendly reminder that we're moving on to discussing the "points" in question, so we will need your input regularly. Though, remember, you don't need to write lengthy posts at this point. Write as much as you have time for. John Smith's 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tariq has asked a question on the mediation page - you haven't responded yet. Cheers, John Smith's 20:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, saw it. Will answer today. Thanks.Giovanni33 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

'RFC' on Ultramarine?

I am thinking that the only solution is an 'RFC' on Ultrmarine. His questions have all been answered and he asks them again and again. He is arguing in circles and making nonsense objections to the smallest things. He is using 'tendentious' arguing. He usually picks a non-important source as his link and name for objections. Like only 'The Nation Magazine' objected to The Torture Manuals. Trying to 'reason' with him does nothing. He is trying to 'owning' the articles by writing his own version and saying that his is the version we will use without objections. I have gotten some changes in but even the smallest true change he wants to argue and argue about. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Do you know how to file an RFC on him? Should we ask for 'mediation' too? Thanks Bmedley Sutler 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ext links for Christianity

You know, we obviously have a difference in opinion concerning academic standards for external links. As we are both personally vested, why don't we just open this up to outside comment? Djma12 ^(talk) 01:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko

An NPOV tag merely indicates an NPOV dispute. There is a dispute over the article's NPOV on the talk page. Per WP:NPOVD, please do not remove an NPOV tag while the dispute is ongoing, and please return the tag. Thank you. THF 06:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See topics 35-49 (!), which remain unresolved. THF 06:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Per your continued edit warring, most recently at Criticism of George W. Bush, I have blocked you for two weeks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is crazy. Did you also block the others who were edit waring there? Or did you only isolate me for this very long block? I note that I only reverted twice over this issue, and the previous times it was when they blanked the entire photo capture, and that was over 3 days ago. I have only been active on this article this week, and have only made edits reverting removal of content per talk and consensus on the article's discussion page. For you to say that this is continued edit waring, with no warning, and apparently, I'm the only one singled out here by you for this rather long block and NO violation of 3RR is very unjust. I plan to appeal this, of course. I am assuming good faith for now, but this block out of the blue is very strange.Giovanni33 05:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a long history of edit warring, and I am clearly not the only one to notice this (see the ANI thread I started on this). That is what convinced me that a longish block was necessary. I do not know the histories of the other users at this article, but I am certainly amenable to hearing a case as to why they, too, should be blocked if you think they should. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not deserve this two week long block. I agree that edit warring is never preferred, and thus to be avoided when possible, but to restore information that was wrongly taking out per consensus is justified. I always work with others and my aim is to protect WP's article with good edits per the policies and standards. I make sure that there is consensus on the talk page, and ask that editors making controversial edits also work by consensus. However, if an editor wants to blank information that goes against consensus, I do revert him and encourage discussion on talk. Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing. That is all I did. I don't revert against consensus, and then keep coming back and doing the same (that is what edit waring is and that is deserving a block). I don't feel I am out of place with my practices which would warrent this two week long block that really comes out of the blue, without warning and is completely one sided--only against me!?

You say a long history? Take a close look at my block log and tell me when was the last time I was blocked for 3RR. It was in Sept. 2006 (the one before that was not a 3RR vio and the blocking admin quickly reversed himself). I edit a lot, daily, and am active currently working on projects, which this block now puts a stop to. I know 3RR is not an entitlement so I try to keep it to no more than 2 reverts, and only if necessary (notice that I prefer to let other editors restore information so I don't act alone. If you look at that article that is exactly what I did.)

The editor who I reverted and who reported me is equally guilty of edit warring, and has a long history of that across many articles, always pushing for his ultra conservative POV, mostly by blanking content that he doesn't like. If your standards are such that you feel my actions deserve a two week long block, then applying the same standards, you would do the same for this other editor, among many others--if not block even longer. If this is the standard, maybe it would be good, but then only if it's applied as a consistent standards so that expectations are set, and implementation is fair. This is hardly the case. In fact, the way I was blocked, the length, and the reasons are all highly irregular (I've been here long enough to know better). There are a lot of very conservative editors who have been trying to get rid of me, and would love to see me banned so they can more easily push their POV on various articles. Their comments thus should be understood in that light. Its editors like myself who restore the balance of NPOV, and I do it by working according to the norms, of consensus, etc. But, I do revert, and do not violate the 3 revert rule. Again, I'm assuming good faith with your action but I hope you can see that 2 weeks for what I did is simply not fair.Giovanni33 06:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33, I'm not passing judgment on either party here when I suggest that you are being singled out as a perennial edit-warrior. The fact that you're reported so often indicates a problem - perhaps one that is not entirely your fault - but you've certainly done your part in playing the role others have ascribed to you.Proabivouac 07:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what your saying. I played a role in my own predicament, which I do not deny. What I do argue is that I have been far better than many others, who are the ones who do the reporting, and who themselves are not reported as often, nor are they ganged up on by POV opponents, as I am. You've seen this happen that the article with UltraMarine on the SOA's. You saw how I used the talk page to work on compromises and only reverted his POV blanking, which you agreed was not appropriate. I got reported for that. I do not edit war for the sake of edit waring. I try to protect WP's article content and use the various dispute resolution methods. I am not a bad editor. I think its a question of organization of my POV opponents, and it's clear to me that the result of this POV driven attempt to get me banned, is not to make WP a better place except for their POV. I get reported often, despite there being no acutal 3RR violation, by the same people who are edit waring and tag teaming to edit war (and they are the ones who lack the merits of the argument or consensus on these edit wars). So they are reporting me for doign what they are doing even worse. These reports are because they want to build up a block log to make a case that I should be banned. They tried before but it was pointed out that my block log is about a year old. I have no doubt that this is politically motivated. Sure, I play a role, and perhaps I should be extra careful knowing what is going on, but still, its not fair (but its reality). In anycase, this 2 week long block under the circumstances, it quite out of the norm. I was restoring the photo and caption that was part of this article for a long time and has consensus. Notice that once it was clear they had no consensus to remove it, they finally gave up. I only restored it twice. Other editors restored it. Then they started to remove reference to the book "The Pet Goat." Again, same conditions: consensus was not to remove that. I only reverted twice (3 days later). Now, for this, I am to be blocked for 2 weeks? No warning, no communication, no chance to even respond. No matter my own role, the process and end result is not one I think should stand as valid.Giovanni33 07:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking a look at the content here (and I realize there is more to your message than this,) I don't think that The Pet Goat belongs on the article, which is supposed be about criticism, not be criticism…but that's also a gripe I have about most "criticism" articles - it's within the realm of what I expect to see on Wikipedia.Proabivouac 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should always be about the criticism, and then only notable ones from reliable sources. But the way I see it, is that in being about it, it must present what the criticism actually is: that Bush did xx, while yyy..(with full context not leaving out important aspects of that criticism). The objection that Tebeatty argued was that he did not consider it a valid, legitimate type of criticism. I will always go with consensus on any issue, and I'm open to be shown I'm wrong, but I feel that the Pet Goat belongs because its part of the criticism that is made by many sources, so we should report that with Goat and all. Contary to Tebeattys claim, I think we should not ourselves determine if the criticism that is legitimate one or not, according to our own standards. We are only to report it fully, state the facts. The standard is Notablity, Verification, etc. That was the flaw of his argument to mention Pet Goat or not. I agree it is not a very strong criticism but it certainly is a notable aspect of it. Now the point I think your making is how to report the facts in a NPOV manner so that we are really reporting it and not making it ourselves. That is a valid point and one I'm open to looking at always to see what consensus can be reached. NPOV is sometimes a very subtle thing. I think reasonable people can reasonably disagree and remain principled instead of "gaming the system" to get ones POV opponent blocked, which is what these specious reports are all about.Giovanni33 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The photo is clearly designed to make Bush look stupid, not show criticism (say a poster of the Michael Moore film.)…but its not so tendentious as to justify a serious block based on WP:RIDICULOUS, more just run-of-the-mill POV pushing in which you're hardly alone.Proabivouac 08:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|Unfair singling out of myself, while I did not revert more than others, nor was there any warning or opportunity for me to adddress any potential problems with my edits, nor did I violate the 3RR rule. I did not even come close. I restored the valid information per the talk page only twice, and on a different but related issue three days ago. Yet, I'm being blocked now without warning, out of the blue for 2 WEEKS?! This is out of the norm, unfair. If we block everyone who reverts, there would not no one left to edit on WP! Not to mention that this is very excessive as I'm careful to follow the rules and am careful not to violate 3RR. But for a non-violation I'm given 2 weeks?! I'll leave this notice here before I start emailing and calling. This is really unjust and I strongly suspect that POV is behind it.}}

Here is the 3RR report. To me, the biggest issue is recruiting people to continue his edit war to game the system. This is also on ANI for review. --Tbeatty 06:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see it now, but you violated normal protocol by not informing me when you made the report, or that you intended to make a report so as to allow me to respond. But, of course! I only notified two editors who were active on the article (I don't know them). I did it so that I could confirm that your edits were against consensus, and so I did not have to be the only one to revert you. The talk page shows that I was right about that so when you removed the information against consensus again (the long standing version too), I reverted you. You always edit war to push your POV, but you report me for edit waring? And then I get blocked ONLY? And, you make sure not to let me know that you are doing so? All these facts say a lot, actually.Giovanni33 06:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I am, at this point, relatively assured that no one is going to reverse (i.e. wheel war) my response to this unblock request, I am now ready to significantly reduce this block. A block which I identified problems with. But I will give the discussion on the noticeboard a bit more time. El_C 07:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you El_C for your involvement in this matter. I appreciate your always being a model administrator.Giovanni33 07:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still looking at this. The report was unorthodox: I have to think that someone got sick of seeing Giovanni33 being reported there all the time. I've seen some tough action on 3RR (among other places) lately.Proabivouac 07:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Proabivouac for your looking into this, as well.Giovanni33 07:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I, as well, would appreciate you conducting an investigation; I am not satisfied with the responses from the noticeboard as they are not qualified, or grounded in... spacetime. El_C 07:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the unblock request, Proabivouac, have you formed an opinion on what the desired outcome should be? El_C 09:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sort of, it's here:[38] I apologize in advance for my ignorance of all the particulars: perhaps someone should look into them more deeply. I sympathize both with people at whom the book is thrown without warning and with a community that is starting to get tough on long-term tendentious editing-within-the-rules: I support this generally, but I can't help feeling bad for Giovanni33 who was plainly and understandably surprised by this suddenly harsh reaction. It's a tough call, and I apologize if I've not called it correctly.. The only thing at which I can arrive is that we can't blow off the frustration of those who have dealt with him - it matters - but I want to see the measures proceed more incrementally so that Giovanni33 can understand what is expected and adjust without suddenly losing his ability to participate. I think three days is enough to send the message that change is necessary, and we can take it from there. A user-conduct RfC might prove useful to clarify the issues involved, and show more specific ways forward. Proabivouac 09:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have amended the block to three days per Proabivouac's suggestion above. El_C 10:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

I thought that was a good edit and the right way around to have it. Thanks for that. I hope you will be able to rejoin mediation as soon as your block is over. John Smith's 12:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To cheer you up

John Smith's has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Advice

I hope you don't mind me commenting here but your statement on the SevenOfDiamonds is way too long. The only other person who made a statement anywhere as long as you is SevenOfDiamonds himself and he had a lot to say. Whereas you have a little to say, but are saying it in a rambling way. I found myself having to force myself to not scan your text but read it, and you don't want the arbitrators doing that:-(

As far as I can tell your main points are as follows:

1. Some people use their political views to judge others with differing views (you need to name names and cite differences to back this statement up).
2. SevenOfDiamonds is an overall good editor with many high quality namespace edits (links to a couple of pages where he has done some good work)
3. SevenOfDiamonds will not be bullied and will stand up tp bullies on other's behalf (again a couple of links) The disruption is caused not by SevenOfDiamonds but by the bullies he is standing up to.
4. Even if SevenOfDiamonds is NuclearUmpf so what? NuclearUmpf should never have been blocked in the first place as he did far more good than harm.

That's about it as far as I can tell. Note that I have said what you said in far fewer words. Perhaps you might consider shortening your statement? I used to be an arbitrator myself BTW so I know a lot about the arbitration process. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and no I don't mind. I guess I can be a man of many words. hehe I don't think its rambling, btw. I like to fully express myself. You have my points correct, except for the last one. I don't know NuclearUmpft, had no interaction with him, so I don't know if he should have been banned or not. I trust the community on this one so I have no reason to think he should not have been. My statment is in regards to SevenOfDiamonds, conduct on WP. Even if people believe he is this other editor, and this other editor was bad, even IF SOD were him, this then shows he has reformed and should not be banned. I agree that I should go back and provide diffs, but the argument is consisent and fits in with the facts already presented. I guess I can go and find diff's that illustrate these poitns, later on. There are other points I made in my statement,which you don't touch on, btw, in particular with the nature and quality of the evidence presented against him and the need to give him the assumption of good faith.Giovanni33 06:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think you should condense it further; it's probably too lengthy to be closely read by most participants, including the arbitrators. El_C 06:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33, did you mean to include me in the right-wing cabal? Look at my user talk: I've spent the balance of how many months evaluating sock reports. That's why MONGO ran it by me.Proabivouac 06:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Probivouac, I don't think you are a bad editor. The bad stuff is not being conservative or not, its how one allows their ideology to be guiding and allows the bias to get the best of them. I think you've shown that you are much better than that. In my statement, I hope I made clear, that my comments regarding political opponents and certain bad editing behaviors, don't go hand in hand, and do not pertain to all editors opposing SOD---only that this much fuss over him has its basis in that, i.e. its orgins.Giovanni33 06:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I added some titles to each paragraph, at least for now. I hope it helps a bit.:)Giovanni33 08:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

---

For a while now I felt Proabivouac is Giovanni33's right-wing sockpuppet. Proof: the absence of a space between the last character in a comment and the signature(!).El_C 06:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh oh. You are too smart for your own good, comrade. :)Giovanni33 06:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course they'll deny it, but we can see it, right Theresa?El_C 06:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

<smile>Everyone one knows that El C is my left wing sock.Proof:Two admins who make lame jokes all the time. How common is that?Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Now we are all one (puppeteer)!El_C 06:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My sockpuppet is over here.Proabivouac 06:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, I see.[39]El_C 06:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time.......

I was supervisor for a department and one of my staff was under disciplinary procedures for screwing up and not working properly. It was my job to log evidence and bring the case. I knew if I wasn't impartial and sooo careful with the evidence I would end up in an industrial tribunal and possibly sacked myself for misconduct. This experience tends to sharpen your mind and makes you look at "evidence" from every possible angle - especially from how you think the accused will argue it. Only if your case is so strong, than any other reading of the evidence is highly unlikely, is it safe to proceed. One day two other members of staff came to me and told me there had been a classic screw up by this guy - just like he always did. This was confirmed by two other members of staff. As I was logging the evidence I pinned them down to details - exactly when (hour day etc). They were a little elusive at first but under pressure came up with the details. All four agreed the date and time of the mess up. I confirmed from the system logs that the screw up had happened exactly as they said - classic example of this persons short comings as an employee. There was only one problem - he had taken that day off so was not on the premises at the time it happened (it wasn't the sort of thing you could screw up by remote login). Boy was I glad I was so thorough and demanded convincing specifics rather than weight of numbers of people who were so sure. Sophia 08:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So search for exculpatory evidence; nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's a good idea. What are not helpful are anecdotes in the service of generic skepticism: if there is a problem with an allegation, say what it is; don't just remind us that there are sometimes problems with allegations.Proabivouac 08:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a wonderful and instructive story, Sophia. Thanks for sharing. Sometimes what appears to be obvious, is simply not the truth. What appears as facts, as common sense (seeing is believing) can turn out to be not true, after all is history not replete with such things people are so sure of, i.e. the earth is flat, center of things, the sun moves, not the earth, etc)? So, we must always appreciate the inherent human capacity to makes mistakes both small and large. And thus we must maintain a healthy practice of doubt, of questioning ourselves esp. when we feel the most confident in our abilities and conclusions, because self confidence can indeed be a double edge sword. So while it can be good to come up with an evaluation and a strong opinion, its a sign of maturity to have the wisdom to see the possibility that we may be wrong and thus should never to be so confident and sure our ourselves that we think we are beyond making a mistake. Now there may be some situations where we are correctly 100% sure, but those are rare. In all other cases, even if we think we are 100% sure, where there is room for doubt, where there are pieces of the puzzle missing, we are better off balancing our own personal confidence with an open mind that maybe we are wrong, i.e. keep other possibilities wide open, and doubt your own premise, where doubt can still exist. This way we guard our confidence from blinding us. This also means we should think in terms of possibilities, and probabilities instead of absolutes.Giovanni33 08:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is another really important moral to the tale that I'm not surprised Proabivouac missed. Someone else screwed up in a way that bore all the hallmarks of the employee under suspicion - only it wasn't him. People working in common environments with common experiences work in ways that appear similar. If we throw out the negative evidence as has been advocated then all we end up with is confirmation biased results. It's like listening to a feedback loop - you get deafened by the noise of people agreeing because others agreed. Sophia 12:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have anyone agreeing or disagreeing with me when I looked at this.Proabivouac 12:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. Picaroon (t) 20:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I removed a whole paragraph from my statement. I'll probably trim some more later.Giovanni33 20:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is still too long I'm afraid. There is a 500 word limit and one of the arbitrators, Charles Matthews, has commented that your statement is nearly 1200 words even after you cut that paragraph. What i suggest you do is take my summary above, modify it to correct the point I got wrong and substitute that for you current statement. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't waste your time

Gio we're dealing with people who don't understand concepts like the birthday paradox and are victim to the "naive intuition" that it describes. If they can't see the fallacy of confirmation biased data with no representation of the statistical significance of the "hits" then there is no point. Just a simple percentage "hit" to noise ratio would be something and hardly any extra work but I doubt we'll ever see anything so rational! Sophia 22:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to think important decisions are made on the basis of intuition. That is even scarier than relaying on supposed "common sense." I give people more credit than that. What happened here was that some editors wanted to get rid of other editors and this was the way they could get away with it. Its only takes one admin willing to act on it. I think this process needs to be fixed. For example, not allowing admins who are involved in content disputes do the banning. If this principal were followed, Tom would not have been able to ban him. Giovanni33 00:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All decisions are made on the basis of intuition. Some people use more data than others to develop the intuition. --Rocksanddirt 16:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

??? What on earth does that mean. If you get a chance can you check the maths on this [40]. Can you think of other base line searches that can be done to show what nonsense the current "evidence" fad is? Sophia 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion

You probably should be aware that I have requested for a third party on the matter at Talk:Woodrow Wilson and hopefully you will agree with the decision, I will.--Southern Texas 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of this it has been listed under requests for comment.--Southern Texas 19:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That wont do it since there are several editors involved. 3rd opinion is when its just two editor and we need a third one, and even then it doesnt help for all issues, such as this one. A Rfc would be better. I edit by consensus, not voting, either.Giovanni33 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't harass editors like you have done to User:Southern Texas it is considered disruptive and has been reverted.--Southern Texas 20:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How is a recommendation not to edit war "harassment?"Proabivouac 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you look at this editor's past posts to my talk page and decide for yourself. This editor is trying to have an edit war with me and using this harassment to try to incite me. It is not working as I have done the exact opposite in edit warring by trying to find a solution. This editor has no intentions of doing so and enjoys edit warring, look at his block log.--Southern Texas 20:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm Strange. I only warned you not to edit war because, I should know--you can still get blocked even if you dont go over 3 reverts within 24 hours. Its considered gaming the system. I agree with these rules and agree edit waring is not good. I see you falling into that trap and making rather weak excuses, then denying you are doing it, saying your stoppping, yet, you continue to edit war. If you don't want to listen to me, that is your choice, but calling my recommendation to you that you not edit war "harassment" is silly and false. Also, I only went to your talk page to answer you after you came to my talk page. I guess you just didn't like being proven wrong in debate. Debate is part of the wikipedia culture, and sometimes one is shown to be wrong. No need to twist that into something it is not.Giovanni33 06:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your post on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

An arbitrator has requested that you reduce the length of your statement on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to the recommended maximum of 500 words, focusing specifically on whether the arbitrators should accept the case proposed to them or not. Please comply as soon as possible. Newyorkbrad 19:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I should be able to get to it by tomorrow.Giovanni33 19:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey giovanni, I think you have some good points, but your latest update leaves you at 1,175 words (your prior summary had 1,198 words). Just thought you might wanna know.Dman727 20:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have did a word count myself. I guess I should trim it further, take out the redundancy. heheGiovanni33 22:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I now count 1126, so I took out another 49 words, and that includes the long quote at the end. At least there is progress. :)Giovanni33 08:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The limit is 500 words. Why are you finding this so difficult? You are supposed to write a few words to indicate whether they should accept or reject the case, that's all. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Each word is a child, yearning to be accepted, crying out for attention, and in need of a sympathetic ear---how could I possibly choose among my children? Ok, more seriously, I know, but I did cut it down and I crafted it to respond particularly to why arbcom should hear or reject the case. The limit is 500 words, but that limit is not strictly enforced, and many others go above it all the time. I hate word limits, personally, and never have complied with strict word limits in all of my many many college papers. All my profs were ok with that. I doubt I'm going to change this long traditions here. But, hey, I am trying and making progress. But, consider the children!! ehheheGiovanni33 16:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah you and I had very different university experiences then. My profs tended to give extra marks for short, sweet, and to the point. Yes the limit is not strictly enforced, but your statement isn't just a little bit longer, it's twice as long. Plus your not even particulaly involved in the case. The thing is, an arbitrator has asked for the limit to be enforced, and taking out only 49 words, is to my mind, taking the piss somewhat. I know you are only joking with your children idea, but that does seem to be how you view your own prose :-( An arbitration case is not like an essay; arbitrators have tons of prose to read everyday and are only interested in cold hard facts. You say think of the children, I say think of the arbitrators! Also actually think of the children too. If your statement is too long it will be skipped over and your children will not be read by anyone. Think how sorry they'll be about that. Anyway I've said my piece, I'll say no more because I don't want o become a nag. But do think about what I have said. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You raise some good points, which I thought of as well. Of course I was kinda joking and hoped that this would produce some smiles maybe. The problem is my children are only children, and they can't be helped. They are needy creatures. While the big, grown up arbitrators are powerful and fully able, and sage consumers of facts and narrative. I have full confidence in their abilities to read a post that is twice as large. I'll try to have less children in the future, but once they are here, they must be cared for. Its the responsiblity of adults to put children first and attend to their needs! heheGiovanni33 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation reminder

I'm just issuing a reminder that the Mao: The Unknown Story 2 RfM is still underway. If you are still interested in mediation, feel free to add to the discussion as soon as you're available. -- tariqabjotu 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm here again just finding out if there is still interest in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2. I cannot tell whether you have lost interest, have not noticed new developments, or have just been busy. -- tariqabjotu 05:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just very busy. Was labor day weekend here and I went camping. Im interested, of course, and will respond today. Thanks.Giovanni33 03:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

See my thoughts here (last cmt) about this shameless attempt to rewrite history, even without the support of bourgeois academia (!). El_C 06:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I share your thoughts, ElC, and thanks for pointing out that their fringe and disputed theories are being pushed in other articles. That will have to be fixed. Even if it is to be mentioned, it has to be properly qualified.Giovanni33 03:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 22:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WP meetup

	In the area? You're invited to
	San Francisco Meetup 3
	Date: September 16th, 2007
	Place: Yerba Buena Gardens, 3pm
	San Francisco Meetup 2

-- phoebe/(talk) 06:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will attend! I hope Jimbo will be there this time, too.Giovanni33 07:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for repeated edit warring across several articles, including Mao: The Unknown Story, Bruce Cumings, Great Leap Forward. I also find your reporting of John Smith's for 3RR, when you had reverted in the edit war yourself, and then subsequently continuing the edit war with another revert, to be a clear indication that you were manipulating the system to try to make your edit stick. You have an extensive block history for edit warring, and should not still be doing this. Dmcdevit·t 07:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost all reports to 3RR are made by people who have been involved in the edit war.Proabivouac 09:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny how your logic was not applied when the case was reversed. Is this a case of special adverse treatment because that is clearly what is happening in practice here.Giovanni33 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block

This account has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. Durova^Charge! 09:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I will appeal this gross injustice. I report a 3RR violation--an example of the type of behavior I was blocked for before--and although I did not violate 3RR, but instead reported it so that the edit warring could be stopped (I believe WP comes first, over not edit warring, but edit warring is bad). So, when the bad editor violates 3RR on top of a wide pattern of edit warring with me over these related issues (issues that an admin brought to my attention), and then I act to counter it, and bring a stop to it by reporting the 3RR violation--the result of this is I get banned?

That is absurd on the face of it. No doubt my block log will be used a the excuse again, but the fact is that it is much better than the guy I'm reporting. He has 6 3RR blocks within a year, while I have one. One block was not for violating 3RR. The others are over a year old. Yet, despite this rather good history over a year of contributing and working with others, I get blocked indef for reporting a 3 violation of another user who is edit warring over pushing a fringe revisionist and non scholarly work into main history articles? I get rewarded for helping WP in this way?!

This will not stand no matter what it takes and will be reversed one way or another. Such injustices of one-sidedly targeting editors such as myself can not stand. I feel this action directed at me to be political, and I plan to start e-mailing, and bringing publicity for my case tonight, before taking the next steps if this is not corrected. It's really unbelievable and should be heard wide and far.Giovanni33 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

I know you cannot comment on it right now, but just FYI, there's a discussion about your indef block at ANI.[41] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure the usual people will chime in.Giovanni33 17:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Giovanni33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As expected people are distorting the facts concerning my block log, which is being used as the basis for this ban. The fact is, no matter the spin, is that the last time I was blocked for violating the 3RR rule was about 1 YEAR AGO with this block: 08:56, 22 September 2006, for 12 hours. The other 3RR vio was way back on July 2006. But now I am to be blocked indef. for reporting another use who is violating 3RR, when I have not done so except year ago? More importantly, the content of this edit war is one in which is being done to keep WP's quality in line with an encylopedia per its rules. I brought this edit war to the attention of an admin board so that it could be put to a stop here:[42] For this someone takes advantage to ban me?! Completely illogical on the face of it (and they ignore the other user who was violating 3RR and edit waring across several article---most of which I did not even involve myself in)?! This is clearly part of the political targeting of left editors, as can be seen by the right-wingers creating this POV motivated desire push me out of WP. This is not what is best for WP. If that matters, then I should be unblocked reverting this grossly unfair and partisan attack on my abilities to have a voice in WP development and content.

Decline reason:

Dear Giovanni33, you have exhausted our patience. Your block log, for lack of a better word, is ridiculously big, and even if you don't specifically break 3RR, if you continually revert articles a.k.a editwar, but day under 4 reverts per 24 hours, that's gaming the system. You should know by now that you're not entitled to three reverts in a content dispute on one article in 24 hours. You've also been disruptive. I'm sorry, Giovanni33, but the community has exhausted their pateince for your behaviour. Your truly— Maxim_(talk) 19:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Perhaps you did not look closely, but I did not do that. I know better. I did not revert 3 times and then wait until the 24 hours is over to revert again, etc. That is gaming the system. What I did was oppose a pov warrior and bring it to the an admin board so the edit waring can be put to a stop. The other user, btw, was guilty of doing exactly this. Even self reverting when he went over 3 RR, only to revert right after then 24 ours, restoring his 4th revert. I reported this ongoing behavior. Yet, he is left untouched, and I am banned? My block log is for blocks about a YEAR ago. Most of the blocks were reversed, overturned. My block log is not that bad if you take close look at it, and better than the user I reported who is being ignored (who has 6 blocks for violating 3RR, compared to my one?!) As far as community patience goes, what you will find is that this expresion of lack of "patience" comes from political foes , so it is to be discounted as such, or taken with a grain of salt. Moreover, the bann was placed when only a couple editors of this ilk reponsed, as is expected. There is no consensus for this action, hence its not a legitimate community ban, but a sloppy and quick action to silence a long time political opponent. The blatant nature of of this can be seen by the fact that the other user goes ignored.Giovanni33 20:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning my block log, here is an objective description of it by another editor who posted on ANI: "Incidentally, Giovanni's block log is a bit deceptive and...not as bad as it seems if you just glance at it. For example all of the apparent blocks from July 6-10 in 2006 (there were 13 of them) seem to revolve around one issue and involve a classic case of wheel warring. In the end Giovanni was not blocked, so what appears to be 13 blocks could actually be viewed as none (or 1 which was contested). In total it seems Giovanni was blocked about 10 times in 2006 (which is no good obviously) and 3 times so far in 2007."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC).I'll add that this is better than the editor I was in conflict with.Giovanni33 20:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I see they are arguing there is consensus to ban, which is false. In the short time this has been up, the usual conservatives jumped at the opportunity, but not all. In fact, several editors opposed this, such as: Proabivouac, Larn t/c, El_C, CBD, Hong Qi Gong, SevenOfDiamonds, Bigtimepeace, and counting. When you remove the partisan ultra-conservatives who wanted me banned from the beginning, there clearly is no consensus.Giovanni33 21:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, this is not how we implement indefinite block on established contributors. As mentioned on ANI, I will be reimposing Dmcdevit's original block. Any other measures should follow parity, well-outlined ultimatums, the Arbitration Committee, or even Community sanction. Thx. El_C 20:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of the your block log — your block log mantra rationalizing for uneven blocks; how about we take a breather from that. El_C 22:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just another way to game the system - give a dog a bad name for long enough, make sure it's not forgotten and then hope someone can be persuaded to hang him on your behalf. Sophia 22:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

At a certain point it becomes entirely circular, blocked because you were blocked the last time, and blocked that time because you were blocked the time before that.Proabivouac 06:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

An unblock offer

Giovanni33, to the best of my recollection I've never disputed with you in any way. So to borrow an analogy from the above discussion, I've got no dog in this race. A couple of lesser sanctions have been proposed such as 1RR. This could possibly go into arbitration. Let's avoid the hassle and work something out amicably. You've brought some positives as well as some negatives to the project. What do you think would maximize your positives while managing the negatives that brought things to this point? Work out a proposal (1RR or whatever - you brainstorm what you think is best) and I'll propose it to the community. If it garners consensus I'll unblock you myself. Sounds fair? Durova^Charge! 01:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer and being amicable. For the good of the project, I propose a 1RR limit for myself and John Smiths as fair. I self imposed a 2 RR for myself, and only went to 3 when I saw what he was pushing. I'll happily go to 1 revert as a limit for a proposed lenght of time as is agreed per consensus (1 year, 6 months?), with the condition that the same applies to the other editor in these edit wars with me, who has been reverting in excess of what I have been doing over several articles (more than myself). Since this ANI is considering both of us (or should be, per the 3RR report), its apropos that both are dealt with in a similar manner with a solution that benefits the project. It would also dispel appearances of being one-side, unfair, etc.Giovanni33 03:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose a 2nd solution that I think would be better for WP: a topic ban on Mao related articles--but again for both parties. The edit wars all center around the Jung Chang book and Mao's China, and I'd be happy to accept a topic ban on these articles provided John Smiths included, as well. This would be my first choice, and I think a better solution as it would end the edit wars period, instead of slowing them down (I can see John Smith doing 1 revert a day, and this would not a real solution).Giovanni33 03:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate what I said on ANI, I, as well, am open to any proposal, but will have to insist on parity. El_C 03:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that over two years ago another admin had brought to my attention John Smith's uneven insertion of Chang's novel theories, and not much has changed since. Imposing restrictions on just one party is, de facto, content-(de)siding masquerading as administrative imperative. Thanks. El_C 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's POV-pushing is really something that needs attention. In fact, all three of the blocks on my block log were the result of edit warring with John Smith's POV-pushing. I should not have edit warred. But John Smith's is a good example of how editors who are the most stubborn on WP gets to edit articles in their own bias. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think both solutions proposed by Giovanni seem reasonable and that we should move forward with one of them. I agree the remedy or remedies should be applied to both editors. Also I think the fact that Giovanni is willing to impose some restrictions on himself is a positive step which the community should take in good faith and which makes it even more unnecessary to do do an indef ban at this point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll repost to WP:CSN with my comments. Thanks. You're welcome to offer additional comments here. Durova^Charge! 16:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The evidence you ask for, (although there is a lot more), can be seen in the 3RR violation report I made against John Smith, which is what caused this. He edit wars with anyone and games the system. I have noticed this for some time and wanted to stop the pov pushing. What I object to is that fact that when several parties engage in almost the identical editing practices, have identical or worse block logs, with the result that only one side of the disputants gets singled out, and the other side is left alone. This is where the bias and unfairness comes into clear view. Here is the 3RR report:[43]

No action was taking despite a clear 3rr violation and more 3rr blocks than I have, and all on the same subjects/articles. The admin closed it stating: "This mess is already under discussion in a broader context at WP:ANI. Review of the actions of both parties is in process. Consolidating discussion is good! --Haemo 20:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)" Yet, I don't see that really happening. I don't think there should be two standards one for right leaning editors and one for the other side. Take a look at this block log, of another telling example. Not only did he recent 3RR violation not result in anyone calling for his banning based on argument pointing to his extensive block log, but his block was shortened/commuted "for parity" because the other person blocked was:[44]. Parity is important. An examination of the edit waring of John Smiths over these same topical related arguments reveal the extent of the problem, which we would be right to deal with conjointly or in tandem, so that not only one party to the dispute is singled out.Giovanni33 17:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, to look at that report I don't see either as qualifying for a 3RR block: the second half of the report marks four reversions that occurred over three days, the first half tracks two reversions each of two different edits. I'm sure there's a broader context than that and you or anyone else is welcome to document it. BTW since John Smith's has contacted me offline and I want to maintain both the actuality and the appearance of full impartiality, you're welcome to e-mail me and/or gmail chat with me if you want. Durova^Charge! 19:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear you argue that. I've always seen that all reversions count: all undoing of another editors edits counts as one revert, even if its to a different part of the article. He reverted both parts, each about 3 times. I know that counts as a clear 3RR violation, because I was blocked a couple of times under the exact same circumstance. So I learned about that the hard way. In the case if John Smith's, I think he knows that is how it works because he even self reverted when he went over, waited for the 24hr period to pass, and then reverted back again, clearly gaming the system.Giovanni33 18:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And to clarify, the 48 hour block for disruption does appear legitimate to me. I suggested community enforceable mediation, but John Smith's wasn't keen on that and made a counterproposal. Would you like to work something out informally or proceed to WP:RFAR? Durova^Charge! 22:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm a lot happens over night. I assume that the answer to your question, in light of the below, is now moot?Giovanni33 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Christianity article watch

The Christianity article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to as soon as this blocking mess gets corrected. I do know the Christianity page is well looked at by regular, trusted, editors, so anything way out of line will get noticed and corrected by them, in all likelihood.Giovanni33 05:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed the thread title as it is identical to one above. I'm keeping an eye on it but hopefully you'll be back on line soon Gio. Sophia 06:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Cumings

Since I can't edit now on the talk page, I'll use my talk page point out this award recognizing Prof. Bruce Cumings (all mention of this leading scholar has been removed from the Korean War article, based on accusations from conservatives that he is bias, leftist, etc. Nonetheless, he is a valid and recognized, and leading scholar in the field. He recently was presented with this important award, which states: "a leading East Asian historian at the University of Chicago, has received South Korea’s first Kim Dae Jung Academic Award for Outstanding Achievements and Scholarly Contributions to Democracy, Human Rights and Peace. The award recognizes outstanding scholarship, and engaged public activity regarding human rights and democratization during the decades of dictatorship in Korea, and after the dictatorship ended in 1987.[45].Giovanni33 19:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request

I have posted Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Giovanni33 where you are a named party and will be unblocking you for the limited purpose of arbitration. You may post to WP:RFAR and to the case and its talk pages (if a case opens). Durova^Charge! 03:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I think this is a little premature, and feel that the community has reached some consensus per my proposals above, which I think the community has the power to implement short of going to formal arbitration. Its simply not that severe an issue, although more so a problem with John Smith since he basically does not ever admit to doing anything wrong. Wanting his cooperation and agreement is ideal, but in this case not practicable. If we are both put on revert probation, I think that would work for the best of WP and solve this on going problem. He has been pov pushing that same issue over years, edit waring with everyone about it, much longer than with me. He has been lucky to be under the radar most of the time or his block log would be much larger. My point is that we should not be edit waring period, and reverting more than once a day anyway IS edit waring. Obviously we are both guilty of this, and while it may be at this time unlclear to some who the principal aggressor is, the need to assign blame primarily to one person may not be worth the time and effort. Sure, we can go through the evidence and find that out, but I feel its best to deal with this without that. We have better things to do, like writing an encylopedia! One revert probation seems not too drastic a solution (in fact, I think it should be policy to change 3RR to one anyway), and it would be a solution here--or a topical ban from Mao related articles for a year. Violators would get blocked with increasing durations (month, 2 months, etc). I have more to say, and would respond on the arbcom page, but right now I'm getting ready for a WP Meet in San Francisco! Last time Jimbo was there, and I hope to take some pictures with my professional gear. Until then, I hope people realize that my interests and goal here is to make WP a better place, and resolve conflict among us in a way that best serves the our noble project.Giovanni33 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately he has very strong opposition to solutions that presume equality between the two of you and he anticipated (reasonably, in my experience) that CEM would probably lean that way. I pointed out the likelihood that taking a hard line on that could result in more serious sanctions against him at arbitration and he's willing to risk that. Also there's the matter that your conflicts have involved more people than just him. The community is deeply divided on this case - it's the kind of thing that normally ends up in arbitration. Durova^Charge! 14:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then this seems like its appropriate then. I've never seen him not take a hard line, and I just want the edit warring to stop. I don't want him banned, but if he can't understand his actions are completely inappropriate, and agreed to a self-imposed revert patrol, and then the community, through the proper channels, needs to take action to impose it. I don't think there is equality between us, either, btw---his edit warring far surpasses mine, over several articles and over several other editors. Also, the content of the POV pushing is another differentiating factor. Yet, for purposes to control his edit warring, I agree to assume parity in terms of sanctions. If the community can’t do this without arbitration, then I agree it’s the correct course. I have confidence in WP, and the arbitration committee to look into the facts and make an appropriate decision. As far as the community being deeply divided, its not really so divided when you take out all the ideologues with political agendas. What I don't understand, still, was why you wanted to convert the 48 hour block into a community ban, right away with no consensus for doing so, and ignoring the facts, i.e. the claims about my block log did not match the facts upon close inspection, for example? That is what I protest, and what is really unfair, esp. considering I was the one that reported this edit warring nonsense, and although I was guilty of edit warring with him, this was only a tiny part of his vast edit warring over several article and with several other editors--yet I'm singled out. Pourquoi? Given that I have these political opponents who are after me, I have to question your actions in that context (of course, it could have just been rash carelessness on your part, which I'm happy to assume).Giovanni33 00:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My own preference has been that participants in POV disputes ought to comment upon and present evidence for community ban discussions rather than attempt to constitute the consensus. I got overruled at the policy and guideline level and, because I abide by the language as it stands, I've brought cases to arbitration that probably could have been resolved at the community level. This is a thankless task and there's a nontrivial possibility that I've been trolled offsite because of it. In your own case I weighed your several barnstars against a careful reading of your block history and sockpuppet cases, with some sampling of actual edits to get a firsthand look at your work. The keystone for me was the checkuser. Without that I probably would have decided that you were a somewhat reformed edit warrior having a relapse, but that opened a legitimate possibility that you had an undetermined number of other dormant sock accounts and hadn't so much reformed as switched tactics. The new set of blocks resumed shortly after the socks were revealed. Most confirmed sockpuppeteers earn an indef with far shorter block histories than yours. If you want to earn back some goodwill, the way to gain it from me would be to offer a complete list of all the socks you've ever used, particularly ones checkuser didn't detect. That's a risky choice because other editors may interpret the disclosure in an entirely different light than I'd see it. I'd be equally willing to look at John Smith's conduct, but nobody actually made a case regarding him by the point when I opened RFAR. I cautioned him in chat that if someone did make a case there was a nontrivial possibility I'd indef block him also. Mainly I'd like to bring matters to a functional resolution. I'd hoped that coming to this with a clean slate in terms of the particular topic and personalities would help, and that a long record of work on dispute resolutions and sanctions in the difficult cases would earn enough clout for impartiality. Wikipedia just isn't very good at resolving problems with longstanding editors who also have longstanding behavioral problems and I don't have the magic bullet for that. Good luck with arbitration, and be advised you're welcome to post a statement to WP:RFAR and/or its talk page. Durova^Charge! 07:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Thanks for explaining, Durova. I do appreciate that. I'm somewhat happy to know that the qualitative turn in your reasoning was my past use of socket puppets, because it helps to explain things to me. I guess, though, that you did realize that was over a year ago, and there have been no indications that I ever resumed with such antics since. In truth, my wife edited here when I first started, and we did not disclose our identities. In fact, I went out of my way to pretend I did not know her. She was of course revealed to share the same IP address, hence a confirmed Sock. And, then I was also accused falsely, and didn't take well to that. I was at a friends house and introduced him to WP, and got in trouble for that too. I was a neophyte then, and made many mistakes, including adopting some real puppets (big mistake). I became indignant to a degree, and wanted to test the system. But, all that is in my past--over a year ago, when I first started. These days, there is no chance for a relapse, as I've gained considerable respect for the community and its rules; I've been playing fair and would never do that again. Those who were there at the time, I think, all believe this to be true. And, I was assured by the community that I'd be given a fresh start, and not have this sock past raised even, to tarnish my name, etc. I would never think of betraying the good will and generosity that was shown to me at the time by people I edit warred with at the time. I regret my past behavior, and did turn a new leaf. So, I don't think its really fair to use something (even a serious thing)--if its really done and over with, over a year old, and forgiven---as basis to make the decision you made to tip the favor from a block to being banned. Well, we can disagree about that and I respect your honesty and explanation nonetheless.Giovanni33 07:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser suggests that Giovanni33 hasn't used socks in over a year, which I think correct. I've also conferred with Musical Linguist, who agrees that Giovanni33 has abandoned this behavior long ago. For our purposes here, it should be completely ignored.Proabivouac 07:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom Statement made, further reading re: Sock Puppet Past made here

My past sock puppets: A confession.

This issue raises the important question: can editors who reform themselves ever be released from the burden of an old but negative block log? History is good, but if one can never qualitatively break with the past, in terms of judgment, then it only encourages editors to start over with a new identity. I’m a classic case of an abuse of the use, meaning, and merits of using a past block log against a reformed editor, when we see the use of the past year old sock issues constantly being brought up to seek my banning.

I should say that I’m happy to do what is needed to earn goodwill from the community on this question. Suffice it to say that falling into the temptation of using puppets is something that happened over a year ago, when I first joined the project. Since a years time in between I have had no indications that I ever resumed with such antics. I have edited in peace, close to a year without even a single block.

In truth, my Belinda Gong, a confirmed sock, is really another person who edited from my house. It my fault for not disclose this fact upfront. In fact, I went out of my way to pretend I did not know her. And, then I was also accused falsely, and didn't take well to that, but no one is to blame but myself. To make matters worse, I was at a friend’s house and introduced him to WP, and got in trouble for that too, since I used his computer to respond to a comment on my talk page, meaning now another confirmed sock. I was a neophyte then, and made many mistakes due to an inadequate understanding of the norms and rules coupled with a lack of respect for the rules and what they represented (really not respecting the WP community)—this led me to adopting some real puppets to game the system. I was never abusive, and my motivations were for doing what I thought was right at the time, despite knowing it was outlawed. I became indignant to a degree, and wanted to test the system; I had a casual regard for the rules, and thought the ends justified the means. I no longer think this way, and repudiate my past. I was wrong. I was not a true Wikipedian then. I probably should have been banned, and allowed come back as a new user from that murky, clouded past. Yet, I stuck with this account, looking at my history as an example of someone who was reformed, and acclimated to the norms of our community given the patience and generosity of those who endured me. Since then I've gained considerable respect for the community and its rules. We are not perfect, yet we try to do what is best—most of us, most of the time. I would never go back to breaking the rules, puppetry, etc. I don’t think anyone who knows me from that time doubts this. And, I was assured by the community that I'd be given a fresh start. I would never think of betraying the good will and generosity that was shown to me at the time by people I treated less than fair. They were good people. Musical Linguist comes to mind. And, others who tolerated me, and did what was best, turning me from an wrong headed editor into one who was converted, so to speak so as to save the beneficial contributions I am able to make. I sincerely regret my past behavior, and did turn a new leaf. Yet, I have this past hanging over my head that gets raised all the time by editors who take WP for a political battleground and want to see me banned. Most of the my sock past is dismissed as “the past” and not relevant, Because I know this is not relevant, I was happy to learn that the admin took the action against me based on it, and without it, I she would not have done so. I think most people will agree that something from ones past they long ago abandoned and have been forgiven by the community for, should not be used as the basis tip the balance from a block to being banned, as has occurred.Giovanni33 22:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Still blocked dejure?

Apparently there is still a question about my abilty to edit WP, as of now. I am also troubled that the blocking admin appears to be acting in a way that I feel is unfair. She stated she wanted to see evidence, a case against John Smiths. So, I showed her, on her talk page. She made the comment that, "Your limited unblock is for the arbitration pages only." I also saw her invitation to e-mail instead (I choose not to e-mail since I believe in transperancy, and openness for this process). I responded with my undestanding that I could edit, stating, "Thanks, although I don't think its fair to keep me from editing any other articles while John Smith is free to do so. That in effect establishing my bann, which there was no consensus for. So unless there is parity for both parties, I should be allowed to edit as well. The other admin El C, said he would restore the previous 3 day block, and I assume it was left there, pending arbitration." I note that this has been standard with other editors who were blocked with a perm ban, but then unblocked when it went to arbitration, instead--and they are allowed to edit freely until then. SevenOfDiamonds is the most recent example where there lacked consensus. I am troubled when I learned that in response to my asking about, this happened: my message was blanked and replaced by this response:

"I find it rather troubling that you demonstrate so little respect as to repost here immediately after I ask you to e-mail. I unblocked you as a courtesy. Bear in mind that the block withstood review, and that what you posted here was a declaration of intent to disregard the conditions of your limited unblock. If (and probably when) arbitration opens your actions will come under scrutiny. It does not bode well to conduct yourself this way on the eve of a case. Durova^Charge! 01:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)" [46]

To respect her right not to respond on her page, I'll respond here. The block did not withstand review, it was objected to, and you stated yourself there was no consensus for it (more voted against it than for it, even, when you took it to the sanction board). The other admin stated he would be undoing it and restoring the original 48 hour block instead, and you stated you would not wheel war with him about that. You did try to work out a soultion with some sanctions but the admin (and others) insisted there be some parity between John Smith and me. That was the sticking point and then you took it to arbcom. So effectively, your bann did not stand, the result of which is pending before Arbcom. John Smith is freely editing now. But, you want me to be restricted until (perhaps months?) arbcom makes a ruling? That is not parity, and that goes against consensus. I do not understand your rationale for this, except that objectively, it appears to me that you are being unfair and one-sided, against me. I'm not sure why, but I will continue to assume good faith about your motivations. I'm sure you are doing what you think is best, even if I don't grasp it, but I'm happy to hear an explanation and to be corrected regarding my interpretation of the above. Also, I'm sorry that you feel I did not show respect by responding with my question to your talk page. That was not my intention, and I won't do that again. With respect, thanks.Giovanni33 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to do the right thing, so I do welcome others comments here, esp. from admins who are not a party to taking action only against one side. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the unblock request that upheld it: User_talk:Giovanni33#Discussion_at_ANI. I haven't any bias here. The facts as I regard them is that I saw a request with evidence for an indefinite block on you and I saw merit to the request. Since then I've seen requests for sanctions on John Smith's that assumed that some sort of parity or linkage existed but the burden of evidence wasn't met to establish that linkage. Variations on that request were certainly repeated often enough, but repetition of an assumption doesn't bridge the logical gap.

I gave you a limited unblock for arbitration as a courtesy, and in the big picture a few weeks of limited editing probably don't count for much. If you'd like more than that during the interim I can be reasonable, but I do appreciate a pro forma respect for your current terms of editing. The approach you took essentially dared me to block you and repeated a rather tired and wholly unmerited accusation of bias. Durova^Charge! 03:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, but I'm sorry we disagree about my current status for editing, i.e. that I'm unblocked but can't actually edit. The way I see it is that you blocked me but it proved to be without consensus (required to make an indef block for an established user). An admin stated that he would overturn your block, and you said you would not wheel war with him. In fact in the review above, this was re-stated: [47] The only reason for the delay was to work out some longer term solution with the other editor in question, and he insisted on parity. So, you appealed this and took it to arbcom. Thats valid. However, your block was rendered not tenable, and if you did not unblock me, another admin would have. Unblocking me yourself does not invalidate this, even though you would prefer to keep me blocked. The other problem I have with your actions and reasoning is that you stated several times you just need to see evidence of John Smith's behavior, and you woudl do the same thing to him. I found that odd, since its easy to see if one looks. You wanted someonoe to make the case and point it out to you. So, I did. Yet, your response is now to point to arbcom, and not take any action. Thats fine, but where is the consistency when it comes to me? In fact, even though the situation is the same in respect to an arbcom case, even now, you are insisted that I, in practice, remain banned from editing despite there being no consensus for that. That is a double standard. Yes, I think you are biased--who isn't? We are ALL biased. I only judge based on the actions and I always assume good faith, where there is an assumption to be made. So, I think you think you are doing what you think is right. I disagree. I think that you're one sidedly taking actions against me speaks of an objective basis, whose origin remains unknown to me. So, for me, its clear you do have a "dog in this race." I don't know why, but that is my impression. If and when your actions change this perception, I'd be happy to say so. And, lastly, no I did not "dare you" to block me. That would be infantile and assinine. I hope you will accord me the same assumption of good faith that I give you.Giovanni33 16:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The assumption you made was to repeatedly accuse me of bias against you, disregarding assurances and evidence to the contrary. I find it rather extraordinary that you call that an assumption of good faith and wonder, by that benchmark, what a bad faith assumption might constitute. For the present I will refrain from reblocking you, but consider myself fully justified in doing so at any time. I have already done my duty in informing you about the options at your disposal and the likelihood of this getting entered as evidence in arbitration. Durova^Charge! 03:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

......and what would you like for your last meal??? Sophia 13:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's in your best interests not to edit. I can't imagine arbcom taking kindly to the fact that the unblock reason in your block log is "limited unblock to participate in arbitration" and that's not what you're doing, regardless of how you view it. --Deskana (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If I were an arbitrator, I might prefer to see a full unblocking here, to evaluate whether the user is able to edit collaboratively now that his editing is under scrutiny. In any event, the arbitration case will be either accepted or not within the next few days. If it's accepted, the question of your status while it is pending can be raised with the arbitrators.

By the way, putting my clerk hat on now, your statement on WP:RfAr is much too long. Could you go back and trim it to a more appropriate length please (see the clerk note there for details). Thanks, Newyorkbrad 15:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The permanent block was just wrong. Gio's behaviour has improved substantially over the last year and people are still itching to permanently ban him at the drop of a hat. He has managed to edit successfully even when his contributions challenge the dominant biases of many wikipedians. I'll call a spade a spade: I think that's the reason why many want rid of him. Yes, it is also due to Gio's behaviour a year ago... But really, how much time is needed before improvements are recognized and acknowledged? ^^James^^ 12:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too ...

And I'm looking forward to seeing the pictures. As it turns out there's already a bunch (for other meetups) posted at Wikipedia meetups. I guess they could go there if people don't mind. I don't, but you never know. See you at the next one. Oh and here's a link for that Wikipedia tee shirt. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Belinda

Yes, it was nice meeting you as well. If Belinda wants to start editing, I think she should just create a new account and state who she is. If she is charged with being a sock-puppet of you, I would be happy to testify that she is in fact a separate person from you. However, I would guess it is still possible for her to behave as a sockpuppet, and that could create problems. If it was impossible to tell if she had added an opinion that was identical to an opinion of yours, it would be impossible to know if she had independently come to the same conclusion, you had asked her to support your view, or you had in fact used her account as a sockpuppet. For this reason, I would not attempt any of these. If one of you has a good argument in a discussion, it is a good argument whether one person makes it or two people do. So don't get involved in the same controversies unless you have different things to say, and even then do so with caution. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it should be the power of argument, and not the power of numbers that decides things. Unfortunately this is sometimes not the case, but your experience is yet another reason why it should always be the case. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Thanks, Sam. I have told her not to edit since it would be seen as me having another sock (something I never would do again), but if she comes out in the open about who she is, then I suppose that would be fine, following your other sage advise.Giovanni33 03:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you two refrain from editing the same articles and involving yourselves in the same discussions, I don't think anyone will care if your wife edits. If anyone gives you any crap, I'll defend you (and I'm sure others will too). Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to convince her, but she has been pretty busy lately.Giovanni33 05:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Gio.

I am glad to hear that you have given up puppetry. Don't get me wrong: I know that you have stated so in the past but it is good to hear it again. It is definitely a good decision and I think you will agree that both of our wiki-lives have been made easier by that.

But I want to chime in on Belinda's issue as I think Sam's posting above might contain a misunderstanding (or not, maybe I am reading this into it). Belinda was not blocked because we thought her to be not a real person. Of course, in the beginning we couldn't know but as far as I can remember nobody doubted her existence and status as your wife once you made that public. (Consider this edit (and never mind the heated tone.) If I remember correctly, my sorely missed friend Musical Linguist posted a similar thing in the arbcom case on Professor33. (BTW, ML did a linguistic check when you were accused of being Divestment, concluded that you were not but did not get around to posting it until the case was closed.)

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that Belinda was not blocked a "unreal" but because it was either you edited in her name back then or she at least edited as your puppet. That is why her account was blocked.

Now, I see that she might come back. My take on this, that she of course might use the already existing account to make her edits. It would be an obvious thing to do since she is Belinda Gong. However, the past history of the account might cause problems, even if you two don't intend anything malicious (and I believe that you don't). As long as she does not act in any way that can be construed as puppet-like behaviour she should be fine. But another editor could use the account's past history (as indicated by the puppet tag, which is not to be removed), even if the accusations are not not valid. Belinda should consider whether it is worth the trouble to then give evidence that she is now editing on her own - you know how difficult it is to give positive evidence of one's innocence. So it might be the better option for Belinda for her to create a fresh account with no visible connection to either Belinda or Giovanni. If (as I suppose) she uses that account properly she will be fine - if she doesn't (which I do not suppose) she will be found out anyway.

In any case, I think Sam's advice above to be quite good. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 09:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, my old friend. I agree with your reasoning and advice. Its still a moot issue now as she has not yet decided to come back, but I hope she does as she has good contributions to make. If and when she does, I'll make sure to explain to her that do's and don't's--for my own sake! :) Basically, I'll tell her not to edit any page that I'm actively editing on--and vise versa. Cheers.Giovanni33 09:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What you wrote is a good start. That is, if and when she decides to return. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your evidence is over 2500 words. Please try to reduce it to at least under 2000, and preferably even closer to the 1000 limit. Picaroon (t) 00:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you may care to remove the barnstar from Bmedley Sutler from your userpage, as he's the sock of a banned editor. Picaroon (t) 00:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll trim that down. I'll have some time to do so Thurs. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. I trimmed it down to about 1500-1600. John Smith's is 2000.Giovanni33 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read the header it says the main evidence should be no more than 1000 words - that's what he was asking you to reduce. John Smith's 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That is my main evidence and its now under 2000, as instructed. I could add a lot more to make it closer to 2000 if you'd like?Giovanni33 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He asked you to make it closer to the 1000 limit - he didn't say to just make it under 2000. Also I don't think replies to editors count as main evidence. John Smith's 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that is not what he said. I am able to read, you know. He said, "Please try to reduce it to at least under 2000."Can you not pester me anymore on my talk page? I don't mean to sound harsh, but you can be very annoying. As I said before, its best if we don't engage each other directly as that seems to produce endless arguments.Giovanni33 22:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your enquiry

Thanks, Gio, for your enquiry about Ann. I hear from her from time to time and therefore can tell you that she currently has to finish a very disagreeable part of her doctoral work that she doesn't enjoy at all but she has to do them before proceeding further. She is well but, because of the workload, didn't manage to go away on holiday this summer. But I expect her to show up from time to time. I am glad that despite our differences we both miss her presence on WP. I must say unfortunately not all admins are as gentle in their administering as she always was. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)