User talk:Otheus/Archive 2

Truth

Hi Otheus : Sometimes truth is dificult to grasp because there is an intrinsecal dificulty (a problem of paradigm like pre-Einstein observation of the predecession of Venus, an specially complicated issue like in quantic observation of interference pattern for a single electron, a strongly ideologized discussion like in who owns Palestine, a strongly partisan discussion like Irak invasion, or a lack of evidence like in who won the battle of Kadesh, etc...) but what are here speaking about is a police investigation about 191 people killed. So someone did it and it is posible to show who was. It is not a matter of opinions but a matter of opinions sustained by proofs because someone did it. We have in one side a 90 000 pages indictement and in the other vague and self contradictory insinuations that have been refuted in the most pure Popperian way.

If the DNA of some people is found in the place of events, if these people are caught with explosive identical to the explosive used, if these people has a reason for doing, if they are recognized by witnesses, etc... and -more important for wikipedia- if ALL the relevant sources in the world except ONE, all the experts in terrorism, all the intelligence services, all the world class media, etc... say something and a single newspaper who has been caught fabricating proofs and the proofs this newspaper has fabricated are the only ones that exist say otherwise, then there is no dificulty for seeing where is the truth with overwhilming probability and -more important for wikipedia- how the artcile must be organized and how the weight and emphasis must be atributed.

It is epistemologically clear that is imposible to proof that the WTC towers were not demolished by explosives but is equally clear that this hypotesis fits with reality in a more conflicting way than the accepted truth.

I have not come here to discuss Popperianism but to warn people who are not familiar with this issue about the tactics of some people who in Spain are discredited but here can found a niche for their fantasies. It is OK for me if English wikipedia wants to give these people the benefit of the doubt but is clear to me that the epistemological reason to give them so, forces to state the million times more probable truth in main article and the counterintuitive minoriary imposible to source with world class media sources, a sub-article.

We cannot know if the world has been created three minutes ago but we can agree that this is less probable than it existing at least for a week or more since then is easier to understand why all of us has recalls for this extended period. And in this way is posible to establish a hierarchy in the the different hypotesis.

In my opinion wikipedia must base on reliable sources to establish such hierarchy and El Mundo ideas are well down in the ladder if you look at what the sources normally used here say about them (basically nothing).

I am also an amateur epistemologist and I love this kind of conversation (I love Koyre, Lakatus, Bunge and certainly Khun) but we cannot accept that some criminals who killed 191 innocents are freed while the policemen who found them in 48 hours are publicly insulted, because we cannot be sure if the world exists or is an illusion. Terrorism is big problem and it is important that everybody knows the truth so everybody can help in the fight. THe reason all this is happening is that in Spain the terrorist group ETA is to abandon terrorism (I do not believe they will but some people things is possible) and this can lead to a big score for current governement. The oposition wants to accuse ETA of 11-M to make this impossible. Of course, it is not all the oposition but only the most irresponsible part of them and El Mundo is completely inmoral chap who has personal questions against people in current governement.

It is a very long story but I stop here because this is lenghty enough.

--Igor21 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC) PS : I know "conspirationist" is not the proper word by I do not have any other to characterize the phenomenon of people stating incredible hypotesis supported by nothing except outlandish suspices, contradicing everybody, not accepting any evidence against there ideas and intending to make everybody buy such hipotesys as "THE TRUTH".

• Igor21, I thank you for your personal feedback. As you may have already seen, I first proposed (without being privy to the full Talk debate) that the controversy section be separated out. (I would also support a policy as such.) However, not being familiar with all the issues, I currently count myself as a bystander and mediator. In fact, I don't have time to want to familiarize myself with all the issues.
• Given my tentative agreement with your overall conclusion -- that the controversy section be separated, I must say that, as an outsider to Spain, Spanish politics, etc, I cannot distinguish between what you say and what the "conspiricists" say. I know that must be deflating, but you seem to have missed my hint: Your argument and reasoning sound as conspiratorial as ... the conspiricists you are trying to refute. It does not help your position when you say (paraphrasing) "it is clear that the hypothesis that the WTC buildings were demolised by explosives is more likely than the accepted hypothesis".
• On a general note about sources: Yes, there is a hierarchy of sources. We are in agreement about that. But as far as I can tell, Wikipedians must come to consensus about which sources should be considered reliable, and which ones should not be. I am doubtful that Arbitration can or should assist on this issue.
• On another epistemological note, you say "someone did it" and "it is possible to show who it was". I think we can be CERTAIN (a rare thing) that someone did it. It is also possible to show who it was. (You said "proofs", but in English, the word here would be "evidence"; proofs indicates a definite, reasonably irrefutable conclusion.) But this is far from being certain about who was responsible.
• On a note about your comment about ETA, you say that the ETA "is to abandon terrorism". Where were you during the 2006_Madrid_Barajas_International_Airport_bombing? Or do you believe that the attribution of this event to the ETA is yet another attempt by the PP to discredit the current government? I don't want an answer -- it's a rhetorical question.
• On a general note about the press: In a free-press society, one of the roles of a press is to confront and challenge. Even if it appears like El Mundo is completely biased toward the current government, it is one of its primary roles to challenge and keep a vigilant eye on the current government. Just because you say it is biased does not mean it is an unreliable source.
• Also, I think you meant the "precession of mercury".
• Finally, on discussing specific points concerning this article or the reliability of El Mundo, we should go back to the Talk page at the 2004 bombing article. For the general epistemological and personal discussion, we can keep here.

Otheus : Yes, my English is not very good. I have answered in the article talk page the questions about it. Here only some minor points.

• Free press is to harrass governements, not to be vehicle of personal vendettas.

• I do not think that ETA is going to stop and this was what I said in my previous post. What I said is that there are people who thinks that is going to happen, not me.

Thanks for you attention. --Igor21 16:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Otheus : In my way of seeing things and Enciclopediae, El Mundo must certainly be named as someone who is inventing incredible lies and publishing them to vehicle a personal vendetta of his owner against the PSOE. Doing that, it has become the aid of some PP politicians who are seeking to cover-up his responsability by negligence in the bombings. This is the truth and this is what should be stated but I understand that in Wikipedia truth is nothing and everything is based on opinions.

I have had a very long quarrel in wikipedia in Spanish with a group of activists who tried to embed El Mundo non-sense in the article. More or less, we succeed by giving the conspirationists a space in a separated "conspirationist theories" article. Situation is not stable because there are people who wants to modify this article to reflect that the theories are based in nothing and then some conspirationist try to come back to the main article to take revenge. My idea is to let conspirationist put what they want in his subarticle since the bizarre epistemology of Wales allows them to do so.

I came to English Wikipedia following Randroide and basically to stop him of doing what he tried to do in Spanish Wikipedia (where he is currently blocked or very recently unblocked). Now he has managed to introduce all the El Mundo non-sense in the article after some dubious maneouvers and we are involved in a growingly complicated process. To be honest I am getting very tired of all these games. Rand Corporation is not Our Lord in Heaven and his list of terrorist events has some mistakes but is clear that his atribution of 11-March to islamist extremists is beyond any doubt and it is cristal clear that not any expert in the world has the shadow of a doubt about this (e.g. Bruce Hoffman).

What is necesary to make English Wikipedia reflect this widely known facts? I do not know. It is my responsability to argue for years to make truth be in Wikipedia when the admins here are more worried about procedures than about truth? certainly not.

Executive abstract of my stance : Naked truth should be stated in Wikipedia. If this is imposible as it seems to be, conspirationist should be provided with a space to say whatever they want to say out of the main article. Finally : once all the experts on terrorism have said which is the truth, what English Wikipedia says in its article is more a problem of English Wikipedia than mine.

I will try to help but I have a life to live and I cannot help to whom does not wants to be helped. Cheers. --Igor21 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

PA issues

He called me an "arch-slanderer" that's a PA pure and simple. Frankly, I've been working hard trying to make this an NPOV article about the notable matters involving Sarfati, and these comments of his simply aren't helpful. If he can't make any productive points regarding editing the article, then I see no reason to mollycoddle him. JoshuaZ 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, you accused Sarfati of supporting torture, after trying to delete the article. You seem determined to insert a criticism section, which is simply not found in articles on people ideologically opposed to Sarfati. And you have banned opponents while hiding behind a very dubious ArbCom ruling. It is hardly surprising that one of the bannees doubts your objectivity (banning for a mere edit undoing something egregious is hardly "mollycoddling". 60.242.13.87 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

One can't get away with personal attacks by adding a few weasel words. The intent is very clear. Guettarda 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - bear in mind what he makes his living doing. Guettarda 20:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you are both missing a very important point. I'm assuming good faith on both parts here. First, JZ did not knowingly enter a statement (ie, about torture) that might knowingly be damaging and was not knowingly a false misrepresentation or unreliable source. Second, that 58.'s claim that JZ was making libelous remarks is not a

personal remark, but one regarding (valid, but refutable) interpretation of JZ's actions.

A bit of a slander yourself, Guettarda?60.242.13.87 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. If you're referring to this, I don't mind proving a WP:POINT as long as its obvious even to Blind Freddy. ;) --Otheus 02:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now any one of these points may be wrong, but it's hard to see where the attack is personal:

1. JZ adds to Sarfati article reference to Sarfati supporting torture.
2. Said reference is a poorly sourced and proves to be a lie.
3. 58. accuses JZ of inserting a lie into the article.
4. 58. accuses JZ of "slander".
5. 58. accuses JZ of "arch-slander".

If JZ inserted a lie into an article, one that is poorly sourced, it might fall under the category of libel. That 58. decides this is the case (which if you believe that he is Sarfati is quite reasonable), then him calling JZ a slanderer is only a categorical mistake, not a substantive one, and thus it is based purely on JZ's actions, not his intent, person, or character. Now calling JZ an arch slanderer might be itself libelous, but perhaps he has other cases in mind where JZ has libeled or inserted lies into articles.

That's not saying you (JZ) are not right in seeing this as a personal attack. Just that I did not see it as such. (whew).

--Otheus 20:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

He didn't accuse anyone of "arch-slander" but called me an "arch-slanderer" (note the difference). Even if a user had added in information that was libel, calling another user a libeler would still be a personal attack. And none of this deals with the basic fact that these comments are legal threats. JoshuaZ 20:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree and always agreed with you on the legal threats part. I just don't see the salient difference between accusing someone of something and calling someone something. But really, I think it's a moot point. You do what you feel is right. --Otheus 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the legal threat? I didn't see anything from 58 like "I will take you to court for this." Slander has a wide non-legal usage, e.g. according to dictionary.com:

1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

Indeed, it doesn't even seem to be reasonable that the legal use could be understood, by what you point out, that the legal term for something in writing is libel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.13.87 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Because generally speaking, slander is against the law. I don't know about NZ/AUS, but since laws there are generally similar to the ones in Britain and the US, I think I can speak with some certainty there: it's a legal threat. And the legal term is libel, yes, when in writing or print. But slander refers to "transitory" medium, which may include radio (and transcripts), and possibly one such as this, where statements may be made in a transitory fashion (edited or removed later). I prefer libel because to me, this is closer to an in-print medium, but the fact is that slander applies just as well. So ... anyway, just stay away from "slander", "libel", etc. Better yet, when referring to JZ's torture insertion, say "falsehoods" or "false remarks". Lying implies that he knew they were lies, which goes to libel, and is a personal attack. You may want to file an WP:AN/I notice about his insertion of libelous material, but only if you can make a clear, non-trivial case for it. --Otheus 12:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. I just saw his "Hitler admins" remark. Even I can't weasel him out of that one. --Otheus 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a general accusation not a specific one. It could refer to the banning of opposing viewpoints on an article and uneven punishments by the ruling body on an opponent compared with a mere warning against one of their own.60.242.13.87 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, like other co*k-sucking, brainless, wife-beating, jew-baiting miscreants, he was making a reference to Hitler's totalitarian tactics, rather than Hitler's other salient features, such as mass-murder, starting a war with the whole world, genocide, etc. Of course, there is no evidence that Hitler beat his wife. (PS: WP:POINT is merely a guideline) *blink* --Otheus 08:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Abuse accusations

What part of my record of blocks, over the 19 months that I have been an admin, leads you to the conclusion that I would block abusively? Guettarda 03:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my confusion. Where did I accuse of abusive blocks?

If you are referring to here, then I apologize for not being clear -- I was pointing out that certain Sarfati talk page frequenters and other admins might be concerned that you would take action in violation of precedent. It looked from your talk page as if you were readying to block 58, and frankly, that would be like throwing gas into the flames. --Otheus 08:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How did it look like I was "readying to block 58"? I had done nothing in the 30 hours since Joshua posted the message and I had said on Joshua's talk page (30 hours before) that I wasn't planning to block 58. So coming along and implying that I was acting abusively is a massive failure to assume good faith on your part. I had done nothing in 30 hours, I don't think I have ever had a block called abusive, so why you would look at my actions and conclude that I was about to block 58, and that I was about to do so in an "abusive" manner, is beyond me. So no, I haven't stopped beating my wife, have you?

As for "taking action in violation of precedent" and "other admins"...I have no idea what you are talking about. Guettarda 14:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Thank you, 58. for fanning the flames</sarcasm>. I have removed your (58.*) remarks. You may discuss that with Guettarda on his talk page if you prefer. --Otheus 15:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda wrote: So coming along and implying that I was acting abusively is a massive failure to assume good faith on your part.

Guettarda, I'm sensing a hostile tone from you. This seems to be a minor misunderstanding. I'm sorry that I did not make it clear that I, personally, was not assuming a lack of good faith on your part... As I'm sure you know, it can be very difficult to follow converstations that span several pages. Will you apply WP:LOVE and forgive me? --Otheus 15:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you still find it necessary for me to respond to your last point? --Otheus 15:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, by making that "wife beating" remark at me, I assess that you are under the impression that my "wife beating" remark was directed at you. Am I correct in this assessment? If so, I will take time to clear that up, for it was most certainly not directed at you. --Otheus 15:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The "wife beating" remarks were based on your accusations against me. First you imply that I am going to abuse my ability to block (an accusation made which was supported by neither my actions with regards to 58, nor my past actions), and then you characterise me as looking like I am about to block 58, when I had made to actions to that effect in 30 hours. Your accusations presupposed wrongdoing, and when I asked you about them, your comments amounted to a "have you stopped beating your wife" statement. You say that you are "sensing a hostile tone". I am not hostile, but I am annoyed with your continuing failure to assume good faith. And now, I see that you are in the process of compiling an attack page.

Guettarda, I'm sensing a hostile tone from you...Will you apply WP:LOVE and forgive me? So, you accuse me of all sorts of wrongdoing, you compile an attack page against me and other editors...and you ask for forgiveness? You need to stop kicking people before you ask them to forgive you for kicking them. Guettarda 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You said "GT has recently accused me of making personal attacks against him; I have proposed that these attacks arose from a misunderstanding and have apologized for my wording". I seem to have missed your comments where you attributed your accusations to "misunderstandings" and apologised for your actions. Could you please point me to these? Thanks. Guettarda 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and I thank you for asking. In my first response to you, just below the start of this subsection is my apology. Here is the diff and here is an excerpt of what I said:

I apologize for my confusion .... I apologize for not being clear.

And so just to make it clear, I apologized for my wording. Normally, (on Wikipedia) that's indistinguishable from actions, but I make the distinction because you believe that I was making a personal attack (an "action") and I assert that I was not, that the inferrence of an attack is based on my wording. I do hope that clears this up. --Otheus 09:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarfati again

Three things, first, let me thank you for your defense here. Second, related to that dif, I think you meant "incorrect" when you wrote "correct". Third, I'm no longer responding to 58.* since none of the comments are germane to improving the article. You may want to do the same. JoshuaZ 13:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you very much for the heads-up on that one. --Otheus 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the barnstar. JoshuaZ 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

portion from 58. deleted, since he later rescinded the point on Talk:JS --Otheus 06:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

AA was also awarded a barnstar, yet was subsequently banned for life from editing a number of articles.58.162.2.122 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

58, I strongly urge you to discuss improvements to the article and stop complaining about admins and ArbCom. Discussion of article improvement is far more likely to result in productive dialogue. JoshuaZ 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, I strongly urge you to stop hiding behind corrupt Arbcom rulings and get rid of this egregiously one-sided punishment, so editors are on level terms again, if you and Wiki desire credibility.58.162.2.122 23:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And 58. I strongly urge you to gather evidence about these "corrupt Arbcom rulings" as I urged 60.*. Create a user page or such with links to diffs of the original arguments, etc, and what other evidence you can find, and do it in a concise, *civil* way. Also, it would help if you can address the topic that you are a suspected sock puppet of AA. --Otheus 06:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that FM has banned 58 for a month. This actually goes a long way to support the case against them. Seems like Vaknin has been vindicated in spades.60.242.13.87 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarfati

First requests

It would be helpful if you would not encourage banned and suspicious editors subject to arbcomm rulings like User:58.162.2.122 and User:60.242.13.87 to disrupt the articles that are the subject of the same rulings. Per the arbcomm ruling "Agapetos angel and User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos, User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204 are banned from editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel." 58.162.2.122 has again been blocked for walking in the footsteps of Agapetos angel and 60.242.13.87 is well on his way to earning the same distinction. By engaging them you simply encourage them to disrupt the article and the project. FeloniousMonk 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop going around implying that "JZ and FM were abusing their authority." I understand that you have a personal ax to grind with me but that sort of reckless allegation is too easily construed as fanning the flames and personal attack, and could easily wind up in dispute resolution. FeloniousMonk 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I said that. Can you point out the diff? Could it be that this was something 58. or 60. said and that you took my response as affirmation? --Otheus 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarfati and AA evidence pages

Please also delete your "evidence" subpage redacted. The Agapetos Angel matter was settled long ago by arbcom ruling and your rehashing of old evidence and gathering of new does not serve the project but rather disrupts it by resurrecting and fanning the flames of a previously settled disruption. Given your history of gunning for me, Guettarda, JoshuaZ it is rightly viewed by me as a form of oblique personal attack, attempting to cast a cloud of suspicion and innuendo over established administrators in good standing. Should you choose not delete the page (which I or any other admin can do for you) I will seek to have it removed by the community through MFD. FeloniousMonk 01:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

FM, In light of the personall attacks against you by others and allegedly by me, I greatly appreciate your civil tone. There are several minunderstandings that we definitely need to discuss and try to clear up. Sunday, however, I will be gone most of the day Sunday (I'm also 6 to 7 hours ahead of you), and I must now go to bed. So perhaps we could discuss this in email or google chat or something.

PS: Regarding the "evidence page": First, I have attempted to be very, very discreet about this page.

Second, Pages in my "user space" for the purpose of taking notes, etc, are expressly allowed in the guidelines here. If you have trouble with something, or feel something is personally attacking you, go ahead and edit that part out (replacing it with a small text noting its removal so we can discuss it later. But until we've had a chance to more fully discuss and clear up these misunderstandings, please leave it in place. --Otheus 01:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No doubt you tried to be discrete. Anyone compiling such an attack page with a lick of sense would. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable per our policies, guidelines and conventions. FeloniousMonk 04:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I must comment that you have either not closely read the guidelines and policies concerning this matter, or have chosen to interpret them in the most agreggious light. Pages constructed in good faith, (see Wikipedia:attack pages:

It should be noted that this guideline is not meant to apply to formal good faith reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior made in accord with policy. For example, a request for comment filed in good faith would not be considered an attack page.

Several of your comments on the AfD page were false and misleading, out of either sloppiness or bad faith. This is very sad. So let me try to set the record straight.

1. Your name (and those of your wikiposse) were at the top of the "sarfati" evidence page listed as a key to the actions concerning 58. and 60. Nowhere in that article were you or your actions attacked or questioned. It is beyond me how someone who actually read the page would come to the conclusion you or anyone else was being attacked.
2. I realize you and I had a disagreement concerning the Denialism page, but this certainly does not amount to a "an established history of having a personal ax to grind with those named on the page Guettarda, JoshuaZ and myself".
   • You and I disagreed over denialism, and if it was personal, it was because I was appalled that you, an admin, and "user in good standing" would create an article that was essentially Original Research. But the debate was over content. (The construction of the word "denialism" from "denial" gives it a completely separate definition, and I could not find even an online dictionary that had such a reference, and neither could you. WP:NEO applied here, but your POV was that it didn't.) I think it's natural for an author to feel attacked when an article they created and worked on is put up for AfD. If that is how you felt, I'm sorry for having given you the impression it was personal.
   • Guettarda and I have had a misunderstanding over my advising him not to take action against 58., action which you did eventually take. (banning 58.)
   • JoshuaZ and I have had completely civil discussions; I even awarded him a barnstar ignoring the attacks from 58. and 60. I should also note that it was these evidence pages which led to my discovery that JoshuaZ had not in fact been responsible for the insertion of the "torture" comments on the Jonathan Sarfati. I would describe my relationship with JZ as "friendly". He has earned my respect, and I hope (prior to this incident) I had earned his.
3. You wrote: Otheus has been resurrecting and fanning the flames of a previous incident settled by arbcomm ruling after failing to gain the upper hand in a content dispute at Jonathan Sarfati. This is sloppy wording. It implied I have been doing X because I failed to get Y. This might be construed as a personal attack, but I think you meant to imply that the it was the "previous incident" which resulted from a failure of the involved parties to get Y. I was not involved in the previous incident.
4. resurrecting and fanning the flames: It's understandable how one might draw this conclusion. After you blocked 58., he returned to the talk page and started complaining. Not knowing the whole history, I attempted to calm him down. The more I looked into the history and tried to give an objective, outside qualification to the AA debacle, the more he became vocal. My "aa" page was essentially a "put up or shut up" page, to let him and I work constructively to objectively analyze the case and outcome of that case. So it's understandable how one can draw this conclusion, but if that is the case, it was my self-appointed role of fire-inspector.
5. The "sarfati" page was in response to a question another admin had regarding whether 58. or 60. was a SSP of AA. Since these 3 used distinct IP addresses, checkuser wouldn't work here, so this was a preliminary attempt to analyze usage and editing patterns. Near the top of the page, it was stated that the conclusions were that 58. and 60. were not the same writer as AA.
6. You said the page is an attempt to cast a cloud of suspicion and innuendo over established administrators in good standing. This is incongruent with the fact that I attempted to keep these pages private and out of general view and (belatedly) marked them with disclaimer headers.
7. Further, if it were the case that these pages amounted to raising "a cloud of suspicion and innuendo", then well, it's not appropriate for you or anyone else to delete them. If you or anyone else takes actions that are inconsistent with that of "administrators in good standing", those actions deserve to be scrutinized without fear of harrassment from those editors.
8. Finally, you added the "notes" page from Guettarda. This was essentially added at his request! Yes! On this very talk page, Guettarda challenged me to review his block log for cases of possible administrative abuse.

This should close this discussion. If you want to apologize for the misunderstanding or if you feel you absolutely must respond, please be very careful how you do so. Since my pages were deleted, I have let 24 hours pass before posting my response -- in order to ensure my head was clear of anger and fear. I strongly suggest that you take similar safeguards -- not that you wouldn't. --Otheus 08:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Redaction of FM/GT's attacks

Is there a reason you removed this item from someone else's comment? redacted You're certainly not making friends, and any influencing of people on your part is such that their impression of you becomes increasingly negative. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Jim. If somehow the page in question is an attack page (which it is not), it follows that less attention to it is desirable, not more. Since this page seemingly violates civility, redacting the link to the page is helping to maintain civility. --Otheus 21:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean removing not redacting, and your assumption is incorrect regarding the removal. Hiding misdeeds does not make them go away. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please look up the word wikt:redacted -- it is more specific than "removal". Labeling actions as "misdeeds" does not make them so. Since you have labeled these as "misdeeds", I can no longer take your advice in good faith. Please STOP commenting on this matter. If we are to have a fight, let it be over something substantive and meaningful. --Otheus 07:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I rescind my request to STOP and my declaration that I can longer take your request in good faith. I apologize for lacking AGF. --Otheus 22:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary would hardly be my first source (I prefer the OED, and if the OED is not handy, Webster's). Redact has one of three meanings: 1 : to put in writing : FRAME; 2 : to select or adapt (as by obscuring or removing sensitive information) for publication or release; broadly : EDIT; 3 : to obscure or remove (text) from a document prior to publication or release.[1] Note the specification of "publication" -- that makes all the difference. Merely removing something from a Wiki talk page is removal, not redaction. That the word is misused by government types has little bearing on its really meaning.

Well, I'm accustomed to the term redaction which is used in archaeological terms, when, for instance, reviewing whether or not a portion of an ancient manuscript is original or has been redacted (See Redaction/Literary redaction). After your complaint, I looked up the Wiktionary definition and it fit my understanding of that word. At any rate, it was a kind of removal or edit, we agree on that. --Otheus 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you defend removing text from someone else's comments, an action that is generally verboten on Wikipedia except in the case of personal attacks, which was clearly not the case here..

Okay, now you should look up the word clearly. ;) See my comment below. --Otheus 12:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a "fight", rather I'm pointing out that I have an intense dislike of attack pages and removal of text from the comments of other editors. I hope this clears things up. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for salving that issue; I was feeling "ganged up on". I note your dislike and removal of text from comments of other editors. What I removed were links to the "attack page" and to the deletion page of such. Now, calling these "attack pages" was an opinion FM and others are free to make, but doing so assumes bad faith; ie, is a form of personal attack. I'm not going to belabor that point because that doesn't matter to me, but if it did matter enough to him to view these as an attack page, then I was justified in removing their reference. What I don't understand is this: if you do dislike attack pages so much, then why would you object to the removal of the links to the attack page itself? --Otheus 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The addition of the link is one of the things that helps keep the goings on of Wikipedia more-or-less transparent. In other words, our credibility is higher when we allow the warts to be seen as opposed to daubing them with makeup. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, the transparency of Wikpedia. Tell me Jim, how is it that you, Guettarda, and FM will suddenly flock to the same page (shall I provide diffs?) without any activity on your respective talk pages. What transparent mechanism of communication did you use to gang up on me. How exactly was it that you stumbled across my talk page just after FM posted his AfD? --Otheus 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And will SOMEONE please tell me how those pages fit the definition of an "attack page"??? --Otheus 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the intent was to discredit other editors without cause. You complain about not following AGF, but where was your adherence to AGF? There is a large difference between promoting transparency and slinging mud. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You say you know what my intent was? Fascinatingly brilliant of you. Will you go on record saying that my alleged attacks had absolutely no basis and that you the allegations against them to be unfounded and untrue? --Otheus 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, Jim, it would appear that you are essentially wrong about my removal of material from my own user talk page -- it is not prohibited or frowned upon. Please review the last sentence of Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. --Otheus 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Had you removed it completely (meaning the whole conversation was archived), I wouldn't care, but in removing part of a comment you altered what the person was trying to say, and therein lies the problem I have with what you did (I was pretty clear about that from the get go). Jim62sch 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I almost see your point -- I just don't see how my removal changed what he was trying to say. Nevertheless, in the future, I will be more careful and take into consideration your advice. --Otheus 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the Bush Administration where unwanted criticisn just goes *poof*. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, but that's exactly what was being done to me. The evidence I was collecting went *poof* because FM thought it was an attack against him. Even if I was using evidence against FM (which I wasn't), it would have been in poor taste to remove it. That you also voted for the deletion of this attack page means you also wanted it deleted. How do you explain this apparent contradiction? --Otheus 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no contradiction really. The evidence was used for the MfD vote. As I too felt that the three pages were attack pages I voted for them to be deleted, which they were; after due process.

As for the sock-check I was unaware of it. I've never seen FM not abide by a sock-check finding. As for FNMF, I have very strong suspicions. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

About the personal attacks

To 151.151.21.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)/151.151.73.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): Your "warning" was not a warning, it was an attack accusing me of a personal attack. You simply don't understand what constitutes a personal attack. What I sent you was a warning, as in "do it again and you will be blocked". What you sent me was an unfounded assertion and an additional assertion: "they need to cease". Since I never started making personal attacks, I can do nothing to cease them. Also, I don't think much of "warnings" from anonymous IP users with a history of vandalism and deletion. --Otheus 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, it is disingenous to remove the attack and then link a diff to it. If the material was so offensive, why link to it? If it wasn't offensive enough to post on my page, why remove it from its source? --Otheus 20:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Request granted. [2] --Uncle Ed 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Just know that whatever you choose to call your "comments" plenty of people still see them as personal attacks, as Ed's pointed out to via his link above already. 151.151.73.169 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing is for sure, there are far too many personal attacks around here. I think it has the effect of making folks feel paranoid that they are being attacked when, maybe they aren't. I mean, some people are really obvious about it (eg, "like other hitler admins") , others are more sly about it ("history of having a personal axe to grind"), and yet others even more sly (this one by Asmodeus comes to mind). After reading that, I have to admin I responded to Jim62sch in basically the same way. I owe him an apology. --Otheus 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read that you have a personal axe to grind seems a perfectly reasonable observation. I don't know how else to account for the "comment" you made to Guettarda after undoing the redirect of his talk page; something like that takes some forethought. "No harm done"? I'm not so sure. Paraphrasing you: it's not your goals that I object to, it's your style. And I hope a style that will be reverted by eating some humble pie. 151.151.73.169 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. The only thing is, I don't know why he left. Perhaps I should have investigated that first. I assumed his leaving was for good, but I was trying to be reassuring that it doesn't have to be that way. Further, I was trying to reassure him that I didn't issue him ill-will. Well, I guess I failed at that. :( --Otheus 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And just to clear this up -- I didn't undo the Redirect. It still functioned afterwards.--Otheus 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Research

Based on my research, I think your edits are in good faith, although mistakeable as possible sockpuppetry to the casual glance. Your recent interest in the article may seem suspicisious, especially following user:Agapetos angel ban on editing the article. However, looking at the dates, there is a almost a 1 year gap between when angel edited the article and when you edited the article and a 9 month edit between angels last edit ever and your edits to Jonathan Sarfati. Based on this article, and the other articles, Ken Ham and Creation Ministries International (which by the way you have never edited that I can find), I really dont see the connection. However, there could be something I am missing and have asked the other parties to comment. Based solely on your edits to Jonathan Sarfati, I have research your edits and the such and out of your 6 total edits to the article, 5 were reverting to a previous state either your edits, or an anon editors edits. The only edit that is making a real change is this one] which appears to be a rewording and nothing tenditious. I cant see any reason to believe that your edits were nothing by good faith unless I am given evidence to prove otherwise. Hope this helps. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am comforted.

Would you also look at something very specific: my original "insult" to Guettarda, as documented on this talk page, and my User pages which FeloniousMonk had deleted. To what extent would you agree with their assessments? --Otheus 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I cant find the instance you are referring to. Can you point me to a specific diff, or copy and paste the material here where I can find it? Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I saved prematurely. The links of diffs are now there. --Otheus 14:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

While this edit] was probably in poor taste (I wont say it was a great idea), it probably could have been stated much nicer. However, you expressed concern of abuse of power based on a conflict of interest. I am not sure if the statement could be backed up but, I dont really see it as a personal attack, meerly a, "I think you have more of a reason to be involved in this than most of us may think" Again, it could have been stated much more tactfully but I dont think it was realy an attack (just my humble interpretation). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

←No problem, glad I could offer another opinion. If there is ever anything else I can help you with, please let me know. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility and NPA

Care to explain how this edit summary is civil? FeloniousMonk 17:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! User 151.151.'s message is harassing Rednblu. I use "harassment" in the very sense WP policy defines it here -- an attempt to instill fear. His threat, of course, of having an RfC file against him for having filed an RfC, is baseless and fairly empty, and such an empty threat is commonly known as "blowing smoke up one's ass" — a bluff, if you will. It's also suitable given 151.151's choice of metaphor in his edit summary: "fanning the flames". Rather poetic, I think. But if you do block me for that, will Guettarda unblock me? After all, he unblocked Duncharris after he had used "fück off" in an edit summary. In that context, I hardly think "ass" would be offensive. --Otheus 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Though it may be too late, but I have apologized for the uncivil edit summary.[3]. --Otheus 15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that that has been dealt with, I would very much like to have a frank an open discussion with you and Guettarda (and maybe 151.151) on some of our, misunderstandings, for lack of a better term. In your edit summaries you have labeled me as "disruptive", you and 151.151 have said I've had a personal axe to grind, you and 151.151. mentioned "fanning the flames", Guettarda regarded as a personal attack some advice I had given him, and I suppose that's not all of it. So, I would like to enter into some kind of informal mediation with you and Guettarda. Again, this is to try to clear up some misunderstandings -- to try to re-establish good faith between all of us. We are all here to make wikipedia better, and it seems to me we have different ideas about what that involves and what methods are good for the project. I would like us to discuss these things openly and frankly. Sincerely, --Otheus 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your excuse for your clear incivility in your edit summary fails to impress and is less than morally gratifying. Believe me when I say that if you want to steer clear of running afoul of WP:CIVIL edit summaries like that need to cease. If that is not something you are concerned about then by all means please carry on. FeloniousMonk 01:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) —This is part of a comment by FeloniousMonk , which got interrupted by the following:

I had assumed you had a problem with the word "ass" or something and answered accordingly. It's not so clear to me what you think is clear. Please clarify what you think the word "clear" really means. What is so uncivil about remarking on someone's bluff as "blowing smoke up my ass"? --Otheus 11:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no "misunderstandings" between us to clear up; if I have said you are disruptive that is because I have found you to be disruptive, and when I said you appear to have a personal ax to grind that is because I see no other rational explanation for maintaining 3 attack pages in your user space and then refusing all calls to remove them, compelling the community to do so through MFD. That's by definition disruption. The sole necessary and sufficient condition for you (or any other editor) to avoid being labeled disruptive or vindictive is to not be disruptive or vindictive. No one capable of proving otherwise is so aggrieved. The risks are too high for responsible contributors in making a genuinely libelous claim, since truth cuts both against libel and for libel and the generally dim view the community takes on those who make personal attacks. FeloniousMonk 01:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) —This is part of a comment by FeloniousMonk , which got interrupted by the following:

This is the kind of misunderstanding I want to clarify, the misunderstanding which forms your basis for my being disruptive and having a personal ax to grind is based on.

2. "They were attack pages."
   1. First, the policy of "attack pages" excludes pages which might be reasonably used in an RfC or similar documentation of dispute resolution. That was my intent for these pages -- to resolve the disputes of 58. and 60. in regards to Agapetos_angel. There is nothing wrong in that.
   2. These pages were also "put up or shut up" page to users 58. and 60. from the Sarfati pages. I repeatedly asked them to be specific about their complaints, and this was my "good faith" effort to meet them half-way. Had they failed to meet me half-way, then I could show their cries were empty.
   3. None of the pages attacked you or Guettarda or JoshuaZ in any way. In fact, through them, I was able to clear up the notion that JZ was responsible for the "torture insertion". The only page which might be considered as such was the "notes" page, which was a compilation of activities regarding Guettarda's block log which he asked me to review.
3. "Refusing all calls ..." (to remove them). There was one call and it was yours and I pleaded with you to on this page to first discuss these pages and ask you to remove anything which you saw as personal attacks.
4. "... (to remove them)". You know I cannot remove them. I might be able to blank them, but exactly what does that do? They were not exactly in plain view as it was.

--Otheus 11:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a difficult time taking your conciliatory tone at face value: WP:AGF enjoins us to assume good faith, but not in the presence of evidence to the contrary. And my experience with your unfortunate habit of engaging those you consider opponents on one page in outwardly civil discussion while at the same time agitating and recruiting others to act against them elsewhere constitutes ample evidence to the contrary. Also given your poor response to Guettarda's requests for civility, your creation of the attack pages I mentioned above, and your subsequent disruptive response to their deletion, your creative use of a redirect for hiding more "evidence" on a subpage in your user space ([4] vs [5]) and your edit summary that brought me here, you'll forgive me if I say I have yet to see evidence that you are here "to make wikipedia better." So I have no interest in engaging in any further discussion with you other than to help other admins in correcting any further missteps on your part and minimize any further disruption you may cause. It is my personal policy to ignore requests from those that have shown themselves to be using the system to gain advantage in content disputes or personal conflicts or that I consider trolls. Also, I refuse to invest any more of my time if I have significant doubts that the person I am dealing with is being less than genuine. Moving forward if I do respond to one of your comments, it should not be considered as a validation of your claims, but is made for the benefit of other, more earnest, contributors. FeloniousMonk 01:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite your vows to neither assume good faith nor listen, I will answer your points one-by-one.

1. AGF is designed to prevent us from assuming evidence to the contrary is, in fact, such evidence. Every piece of "evidence" that you have shown has been misconstrued, twisted, and bent to assume the worst possible faith.
2. your unfortunate habit of engaging those you consider opponents on one page [civilly] while at the same time agitating and recruiting others to act against them elsewhere. I have done no such thing.
3. Also given your poor response to Guettarda's requests for civility. I immediately apologized for my wording. Another admin agreed this was not a personal attack but a failure to use tact. What more could I have done?
4. and your subsequent disruptive response to their deletion. It would take a herculean effort to find such a response.
5. your creative use of a redirect for hiding more "evidence" on a subpage in your user space. This is the page I suggested we use to have informal mediation.
6. you'll forgive me if I say I have yet to see evidence that you are here "to make wikipedia better." I might be forgiving if you acknowledge some of my other edits and continuing contributions to work on the {{cleanup}} and {{copyedit}} backlogs.
7. Moving forward if I do respond to one of your comments, it should not be considered as a validation of your claims,'. FeloniousMonk, refusing to actually engage in dialogue with me, which you have never done violates everything about Wikipedia.

It is very sad that you, FeloniousMonk, are unwilling to engage me in conversation. All you have done is leveled accusations against me associated with vaguely-corresponding diffs.

--Otheus 11:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda Responds

I would very much like to have a frank an open discussion with you and Guettarda - What is there to discuss with you? Not only have you refused to apologise for your personal attacks against me, you went on the put together an attack page. You make "peace offerings", and follow them up with nasty attacking emails. And, outside of discussions directly-related to article content, I really see no reason to interact with with David Irving-apologists and Treblinka-revisionists. Guettarda 02:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, why do you refuse to accept or acknowledge my apologies? Why do you characterize everything I say to you as an attack? Why do you ask me to investigate your block log to see if there is evidence of abuse, and when I do so, call such evidence an attack page? Why do you call me a "Treblinka-revisionist" against all evidence to the contrary? Do you see a difference between an apologist and a balanced "sympathizer"? Do you have no sympathy for those arrested for "speech crimes"? Are you implying that if a family member were arrested for a speech crime, you would disown him or her?

--Otheus 11:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, people who "apologise" while sending nasty email and compiling attack pages aren't apologising. There isn't the slightest hint of anything genuine in your "apology". As for family members - if they were engaging in Holocaust denial, yes, I would disown them. And I definitely would give a family member a lot more leeway than I would give you. Guettarda 12:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you consistently mischaracterize my comments, the timing of such, and refuse to assume good faith? You know you asked me to look into your blocking history, you know these pages were not attacking you in any way, you know that such pages are not illegal under the policies here, you know that my apologies and smiles were sent after all these events -- not "while" or during. You know better than to think me a Holocaust denier simply because I'm sympathetic toward a person who was arrested and jailed for speaking his own (arguably twisted) mind? If you fail to acknowledge any of these, then at least we will know that informal mediation is pointless.

--Otheus 12:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly no, I don't "know better" - I read your comments about Irving, and about Treblinka, and I see a clear pattern. In the US, where hate speech is protected, I can see someone defending the rights of someone to indulge in hate speech. Where hate speech is illegal, there's no general priniciple to defend. Anyway, coupled with your comments on Treblinka, it forms a clear pattern. As for the messages - you sent a peace offering, then a nasty email, then a peace offering - and, quite frankly, I wouldn't know if you sent me another nasty email, since any email from you now goes directly into the trash. All I have seen is your on-wiki behaviour, which is still full of sniping. Guettarda 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, thank you very much for responding. I really do appreciate it. I humbly apologize for declaring that you know certain things, when it's now clear that you didn't, or at least, had a very different idea. Please allow me to set the record straight on these things.

First, on David Irving and freedom of speech -- As an American, I believe in the principle of free speech, not just the "convenient" expression of it in Constitutional Law. The only remedy to false, wrong, or hate speech is ... more speech. I cringe at the term "hate speech" -- the term itself is morally corrupt, as it is used through intimidation to prevent speech itself. I see the Irving case as a continuation of the erosion in global civil discourse, an erosion that may ultimately lead to the kind of protests that were apparent after the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy. It was the irony of the coincidence of these facts -- first the protests, and then shortly after that, the Irving arrest case -- which sparked my interest in this. Thus, my 2nd post ever on a talk page: [6].

First off, the context. I am evaluating the current situtation (16:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)) with the Muslim violent reaction and economic boycotts of the Danes for a Danish newspaper printing cartoons of Mohommad. Does the fact that Islam bans the reproduction of images of Mohommad mean that a Danish newspaper is engaging in hate-speech? Eith equal measure, how does Europe regard Holocaust deniers. Clearly, with Irving, it is to imprison him.

This is particularly ironic, since I am an American, living in Austria. I may have a chance to interview Mr. Irving myself when I visit Graz next month. However, I myself am banned from denying or even questioning the holocaust. I'm even banned from questioning whether I can question the Holocaust.

So that piqued my interest in this article. My hope is that I culled away material that could be inflammatory on either side of this debate, while maintaining verifiable facts.

Here I am, newcomer to Austria, an American proud of the Constitution (though not proud of the US' record in sticking with it) and Europe is fretting over the Muslim reaction to exercising its freedom of speech while jailing another for exercising his. --Otheus 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On Treblinka. Please review those diffs again. Basically, I am contending the accuracy of someone's unattributed interpretation of the Hoefle telegram. At the time, the article said reads (uncited, unattributed)

"The Höfle Telegram listed 713,555 Jews killed in Treblinka through the end of December, 1941."

Someone posted to the Treblinka talk page the transcript of this telegram to the Talk page before it got to the Telegram's article page[7]. According to my interpretation at the time, the article says that until the end of 1942, "71355" Jews "stood" (german stand if a verb). In my post, I note that 71355 is probably an error ("gut instinct"), since the calculation implies 713555, and the calculation would have been done by hand (I doubt calculators were that common in '42). But my main point is that if this number of Jews were standing at the end of 1942, they had 9 months to kill them, and as a sanity check, I translate that in deaths per minute. It's a ghastly and grisly number -- but to the defiance of skeptics, far from impossible.

Finally, the timing of my messages to you. Before you left, I tried to clear up our misunderstanding on these talk pages. You rebuffed my apology, I tried again; you asked me to show you where the apology was. I did that. But you left WP without acknowledging one way or the other. Very shortly after you blanked your pages, I sent the email. After you returned to wikipedia, I added the smile -- the first peace offering, which you removed. Then I posted the second smile. So perhaps you received the email after you returned, or perhaps you are referring to my first attempt at a peace offering as the one on this talk page, the one which you never accepted.

Concerning that email: I truly regret the condescending tone. I know it may not do much good to say this now, but at the time, in my email, I was attempting to be magnanimous. I realize now I should have just kept my mouth shut. I truly regret sending it. --Otheus 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Innsbruck

Hello Otheus You asked me if I'm from Innsbruck, the answere is yes...I was born and live there since 24 years. But why are you asking for ?
--Lukas A. Mall 06:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ancash Region

Hi Otheus, thanks for helping me with my writing. It's very well appreciate. However I did some minor changes to your copy editing. Would you please take a look and tell me what you think about them? Thanks, --Evelyn Zuñiga 21:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Black hair

I was feeling charitable so I only tagged the most dubious claims and left the less controversial stuff alone, though it basically seemed like all OR. (I guess the bits that link to other articles - e.g. black Irish, models of migration - is not OR.) That being said, I think the unreferenced tag at the top is probably a good thing. Calliopejen1 12:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Mercora

Can you please check Mercora and give me an opinion on whether it is in good enough condition to close the cleanup taskforce project on this article? Thank you. RJFJR 14:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Still needs some minor copy-editing, but yes, you can close the task, I think. --Otheus 14:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I closed it. Thanks. RJFJR 14:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher

Hi Otheus. I notice you are currently copyediting Michael Schumacher. You may wish to tread carefully around the "Debut" section, where Eddie Jordan compares Schumacher and Damon Hill - there was a huge controversy over the wording of that section a couple of months back - see Talk:Michael_Schumacher#Continued_vandalism_of_the_debut_section. Regards. -- DH85868993 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Shit. Thanks for the heads-up, but it's too late!!! :) How do you think it is now? If it will draw fire, I'll revert that change (original is still in comments). --Otheus 16:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC) .

Michael Schumacher

Thanks for your work on copyediting Michael Schumacher. Just saw your note on Eddie Jordan's comments on Michael Schumacher. Yup, that's exactly what Eddie said: Schumacher (who drove for him in only one race in 1991) was clearly better than Senna (who drove for him for one race in 1983) and Hill (who drove for him for two seasons, but only seven years later). Which is an excellent example of Jordan's normal logic! We had a big discussion about it on the talk page, which I don't suggest you go read as it's boring and long! I think we actually eventually decided on removing that bit, but the content of the article has been the subject of long (and sometimes unpleasant) arguments and I suspect we're all a bit fed up with it at present. Cheers. 4u1e 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this isn't as bad as editing a page on evolution or on someone related to intelligent design! ;) --Otheus 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that bad, but pretty bad, he seems to be one of those people of whom everyone has a view that they know is right, even without a reference, and which must be added. At some point I also ought to do something about the references, which are an eclectic selection of random websites which supported the point being made at the time, which is bass ackwards in terms of writing an article. Hey ho. :S 4u1e 17:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your apology

Thanks, I appreciate it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

moved from user-page:

--- moved from user-page:

The changes in the article on Sergio Fiorentino look good. Thank you for the excellent editing. -- TBHecht, 15 April 2007

--VeronikaMM 04:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks and a note about the copyedit template

Hi Othueus! Just wanted to say "thanks" for your work in the League, and to give a quick reminder. Please place the WP:LoCE template in the body of the article's talk page, under the heading "Copyedit". We had some feedback from article editors and League members (see the League's talk archives) who felt it was better to take this approach, rather than place the template at the top, because it is less intrusive and more accurate in the sense of the article's "history" of edits. Thanks! Galena11 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Galena! Thanks for the feedback. I noted that you started working on my recently-posted list of "needs proofreading". These were articles that I have worked on over the past few months, not aware of the "newer" instructions about placing the LoCE notice on the bottom of the page, nor the usage of the project page to note what pages have been worked on. That's why I added so many articles to that section.

Following along this line of thinking, I'm the one who has asked for a discussion on the project's talk page concerning a more useful approach to using our templates. --Otheus 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, and I think your suggestions for the overhaul are good ones. :o) Galena11 19:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyedi-proofreading project page

You deleted my entry for proofreading of that article and added your own, I believe. That is why I posted it. It's a bit silly (my comment) though, so i'm removing it. Sorry. Erythromycin 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I moved the article from to be proofread to complete; I didn't realize I was to copy what you had put there. I fixed my mistakes. Thanks for drawing attention to it. --Otheus 09:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

fact vs nor

Yes one can put fact in if one thinks there is a citation. I did not think there would be a citation. it was worded very much like one person's opinion. The Ayn name should probably have at least 2 cites to related it to ainos though becaue what if the opinion of the other author is not substantiated? then we are perpetrating fiction, which might still be the problem --Buridan 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• shrug* The citation seems to be pretty substantiated. ARI generally wouldn't put something on their website that might later prove false. That would be very very embarrassing for them, as they see themselves the guardians of everything that is Ayn Rand. --Otheus 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You were right to remove that material. I added a citation and clarified that Rand did not state herself that her name was from Kallas. I also removed the semi OR about the other origins of the name. Otheus 17:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Composed of

Otheus -- no hard feelings, but even in hindsight uw-vandalism3 seems like a strong position to start with. Had I been wrong, shouldn't my user warnings have started at the 1 level (WP:AGF) unless there was reason not to assume good faith? -- JHunterJ 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked me about this. First, I did remove the warning, since I was clearly incorrect about the usage. Second, normally, yeah, and almost always, I do a level 1. However, given my initial assumption that you were a vandal, a given that you made quite a few edits in a short time period, I think uw-3 is justified. A few weeks ago, I saw a somewhat senior admin "jump" to 3 on what I thought was rather minor abuse, and I asked him about it. He said, "hey, this way they'll stop." To sum, I am incredibly ashamed of my grammatical error, but given the situation, uw3 was probably the way to go. 17:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few edits in a short time period with WP:AWB is not a good enough reason to break WP:AGF and assume I'm a vandal. Even if I had been replacing correct usage with incorrect usage, screwing up "is comprised of" is hardly vandal-worthy. I understand the desire to see vandals stopped, but WP:ABF isn't the way to get there -- there should be evidence of bad faith. The level-3 templates assume it, but the editor invoking them shouldn't. "If you are not sure that an edit is vandalism, always start with {{uw-test1}}.", and bad grammar is not vandalism. (I'd be happy to repeat this comment with the senior admin too, if the earlier minor incident was also covered by "What vandalism is not".) It's academic in my case, and I'm not here to bust your chops, but when you have to warn other editors in the future, I'm hoping this discussion may hold some sway. -- JHunterJ 12:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion will hold some sway. However, please also see Special:Contributions/58.169.188.195 and User_talk:58.169.188.195. Otheus 12:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; several warnings precede a uw3 in that case (as far as I can tell). Good form there. -- JHunterJ 13:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that several unnumbered, ad hoc warnings did nothing. In fact, the uw3 did nothing. It was deliberate, methodical, repetitive. Yours was the same, except you were right! Next time something like that happens, where it's clearly deliberate, methodical, repetitive, I will first make sure it's wrong, and then do a uw2. WP:warnings says messages of that level "assumes no faith", and though I want to see the IP's deliberate mass edits as intentionally harming Wikipedia, I suppose it's the best if I at least make no assumption of bad faith. Otheus 14:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The several unnumbered, ad-hoc warnings did nothing in that case', and (as you note), there's no guarantee that uw3 will do anything either. That doesn't invalidate the process. When level-1s (or ad-hoc equivalents) are warranted and do nothing, level-2s should be used next; if they do nothing, level-3s should be used next. When level-3s are warranted in the first place, they should be used, but many grammatical un-fixes in a short period of time could still be made in good faith and would not warrant level-3s. Starting with level-3s would mean that you can tell there's bad faith involved. That's what I'm trying to get at. -- JHunterJ 14:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to my world

Though we may have slight (or even major) differences of opinion, it will be nice to have someone else who looks over these articles. --ScienceApologist 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

in the interests of keeping things civil

Regarding the IP editor at Talk:Christopher Michael Langan, I would like to ask you to either use the normal dispute resolution paths, like request for comment, or don't call this editor a troll. If there's enough evidence of trollery, an RFC can collect it and then if necessary a topic ban can be enacted at the community sanction noticeboard. But if you aren't going to go to that extent, please just try to keep the peace and don't label anyone unnecessarily. Thanks, — coelacan — 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the IP not to bring complaints to your talk page. You're certainly within your rights to remove anything that is posted to you here (try to use neutral or empty edit summaries though). Don't remove anything from the article talk page that isn't a blatant personal attack though (nothing I've seen in the last 24 hours from that IP would merit outright removal). I've asked them also to register an account, but no one is under any obligation to do so and that in and of itself can't be counted against someone. If you need to reply to that user, just do so on the article talk page. — coelacan — 20:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for the good counsel. Otheus 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fine. — coelacan — 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Your RfC question

Yes, I note that some people stated that. Quite honestly, it looks to me as though the website doing both, and yes, I stand by my position. Regardless of whether it's a derogatory website making a negative portrayal of a certain type of editors, or is really coaching disruption (or, as in my opinion, is doing both), it's totally inappropriate to send someone to while "welcoming" them. Regardless, RfCs don't have any "teeth", and their purpose is to avoid arbitration. Arbitration is trivially easy for Martinphi to avoid here, it's simply and easily a matter of "stop the behavior those commenting in the RfC clearly don't approve of," and continuing behavior you were clearly told in an RfC is unacceptable will lead to a bad result at ArbCom regardless of my opinions on any website out there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Concerning "whether it's a derogatory website making a negative portrayal of a certain type of editors, or is really coaching disruption (or, as in my opinion, is doing both), it's totally inappropriate to send someone to while "welcoming" them", even if I agreed with your premises, I cannot agree with your conclusion. Given often and repeated uses of the policy "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and recent enforcements of "Your user page is subject to the will of the community" (a community consisting of 3 administrators), it's impossible to have on-wiki representations about ... anything, and especially not one critical of a "certain type of editors". I want to stress that the essence of this sentence is the only disagreement you and I have over the matter. I also want to stress that while the matter at large is moot (the website's author has publically stated his dedication to another project, and Martinphi's prospects of surviving ArbCom don't look good), I think my disagreement with you is not moot. --Otheus 02:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to try to outguess the ArbCom. Indeed, this very issue may be brought up there (I may bring it up if no one else does), and of course if ArbCom says "That's fine to do" or "Don't ever do that", that would indeed render our discussion moot. However, that being the case, I would certainly consider it disruptive and harmful if someone were to "welcome" new users with a statement such as "This place sucks! Everyone is out to get you!" That would apply whether that were said directly or, as in this case, is being sent to an offsite link saying so. Given that Martinphi sent another user to an essay he wrote (and in this case it was on-wiki, in his userspace), which was basically a detailed guide to subtle and disruptive POV-pushing, I stand by my conclusion that his intent was disruptive. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So you know that the essay he wrote was on-wiki in his userspace at one time. So the problem with his welcome message isn't that it's an off-site link, or even a welcome message which essentially includes his personal tips on how to be a wikipedian, but the fact that his tips are POV-pushing and as a guide to disruptive behavior. Is that a correct assessment of your view? Otheus 03:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! If he wanted to send users to an offsite link that explained the importance of signing your posts with ~~~~, or an essay in his userspace with some tricks he'd learned for creating nice-looking tables, I wouldn't have a thing bad to say about that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so our disagreement, is whether the content of his offsite wiki amounts to "a detailed guide to subtle and disruptive POV-pushing". Just so I make sure we're working with the same version of the article, when was the last time you read it? Otheus 03:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The last (and for that matter only) time I've read it would be before I made the RfC comment, timestamp on that is "15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)". So, 3 weeks ago give or take. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Since it has certainly changed since then, and since it may have changed specifically in your response to your criticism, its rather pointless to discuss. If you don't mind, I would like to note this fact on the RfC or file it with ArbCom. Unless, of course, you'd like to read the article again to see if it matches with what you remember reading 3 weeks ago. Otheus 03:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have another read, since you seem to think the changes are substantial. (Of course, it still matters more what it was at the time it was being used anyway.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the specific section I questioned was indeed changed to clarify that it was referring to the "other side." However, I still would question the appropriateness of sending a new user to that site, as it's still pretty negative in tone and effectively coaching to assume bad faith. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And I am glad that my characterization of your characterization of that's site's characterization of skeptics is now obsolete. :) Otheus 08:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the characterization of the characterization of...oh screw it, not enough coffee to figure that out. Just glad we could get it resolved, thanks for bringing it to my attention. :) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis

Otheus,

Not sure where to contact you....but I've accepted your offer to mediate (Robert Sungenis).

Thank you.

Liam Patrick 14:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for tirelessly copyediting and proofreading articles in the League of Copyeditors. Erythromycin 13:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You really do deserve it. The entire proofreading page is filled with your name :P Erythromycin 13:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks! Just goes to show you what good being out of work gets you. ^) Really, much appreciated! Otheus 15:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Vienna

I'm not finished yet! But that was a start, anyway. Cricketgirl 12:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, finished now, but I can't get the very last paragraph of the section on "Library History" right. Apart from that, I'd say it's done, and it's only a little quibble, so I'm going to mark it down as proofread complete, but I've put a comment on the talk page in the hope that someone else can fix it! Cricketgirl 20:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Also I took the liberty of acknowledging you as a copyeditor on Adnan Sami with the WP:LoCE banner. Cricketgirl 20:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Lancombz

Freddytris is up to it still. He removed the sockpuppet notice from his user page, edited the Ayn Rand page again. etc.Ethan a dawe 22:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Otheus for taking care of the abusers!11:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also many thanks for the guardianship--Ziji 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Though/Although

Hey there, cheers for the heads-up. I'm very happy to accept your preference of 'though' - I'm aware that I write quite formal English when I'm trying to write in 'an encyclopaedic tone'. So I'll bear that in mind! Haven't finished on My Wife and Kids yet - was just doing a bit over breakfast. I'll get back to it once I've finished my vacation work which was due in a week ago... You're doing great work at LoCE too! Also, I like your 'IGF' sign-off. I might just have to copy it if you don't mind! Mine currently being... Happy editing! Cricketgirl 11:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with the article Plymouth Colony

Hey, I want to thank you for the copyedit you gave to the article Plymouth Colony last week. I have made some more extensive revisions and additions to the article, and I was wondering if you would be so kind as to look over the article again and give it some work? I have added sections on prior settlements, Social history, and economy and expanded the government section some. Your work has been very beneficial to the article, and I plan to take this to peer review soon, and would like to have your help in prepping it for that, and possibly reaching Featured status sometime down the road. Thanks again for your prior work, and thanks in advance for any help you can give in the near future! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible block

Hi Otheus, someone from NYU has been vandalizing my userpage. This all started after the Lancombz sockpuppet case. Is it possible to look into blok anonyous editing by that NYU IP address. You can see culprit in the history on my userpage. Thanks for any help!Ethan a dawe 21:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your outstanding work at the League of Copyeditors. Keep it up! The Hippie 22:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help

He's at it again Otheus. Please help, perhaps admin can have User Griot blocked from [Jeanne Marie Spicuzza] article. This issue was already addressed on the discussion page, but this guy just won't quit! 76.166.123.129

I won't have time to look into this fully. Instead of relying on me, you should write up the incident on WP:AN/I, the noticeboard for such events. Best wishes. --Otheus 12:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Otheus, hope you're well. 76.166.123.129

Lancombz?

FYI: This edit was tendentious insofar as it put the work out of chronological order; it is an edit related to Objectivism, from a IP on whose talk page you posted a block warning against such edits. —SlamDiego_←T 13:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Otheus. I suspect Lancombz is back under a new user name. Are you available to help out again? Endlessmike 888 23:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Kent FAC

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Kent article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments moved to Talk:Kent --Otheus 13:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your improvements to the Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) article. I have tried but didn't get very far. If you would like to check out the article's talk page you will see that there are some other problems that could be addressed. Steve Dufour 12:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement Steve; it is greatly appreciated. I do want to make a few things clear, to you and the other editors who hound this topic: I do not find ID to be worthy of science or of presentation in the publicly-funded classroom. However, the goals and potential benefits of an objective, neutral, and accurate Wikipedia far outweigh any minor trivialities such as what children learn in school, such as what passed for science when I was in school and that later proved to be bunk, junk, or soon displaced by newer knowledge and understanding.

Again, thanks for the encouragement. --Otheus 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with copyediting an article...

Hey, you REALLY helped a prior article I was involved in, Plymouth Colony, and I was wondering if you could lend a helping hand with a current FAC that I have? The article is History of American football and the FAC is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of American football. I have done my best to meet requests as they come up; but it looks like there is a need for a set of fresh eyes to give it a general copyedit from top to bottom. Could you perhaps add it to your queue to take a look at it when you get a chance? Thanks! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-register

Hello, Otheus! You are receiving this notice because the Cleanup Taskforce has been inactive, as a result of this all active taskforce members are being asked to re-register.

For more information see: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Not Dead Yet

If you do not re-register here within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the membership list (if you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just add you name back).

RJFJR 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

==Lil Chris==

Lil Chris has received some heavy editing recently. Would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fucking

I think [8] would be best. It not only shows the sign at the village, but helps illustrate the popularity of stealing the sign.--ZayZayEM 02:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Proofreading

Could you proofread this pleas as far as it exists by now: Austria at the Time of National Socialism? --VeronikaMM 07:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)