User talk:Skyeking

Welcome

Hello, Skyeking! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Välkommen (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

IMPORTANT – Skyeking’s Declaration of Protest and Dispute

Skyeking remains diametrically opposed to sixty-seven percent (67%) of Mark Arsten’s “draft” version (Skyeking’s viewpoint of) that first posted on January 16, 2012 (and edited to....forever). Especially opposed to, Arsten’s deletion (omission???) of important information (article content), and two video links, and key concepts, and article format (headings, sentence/paragraph structure, phraseology, design, etc.), and so on...; all deleted from the long-standing (27-months to develop by primary Editors and others) “original” version (refer here).

Therefore, regardless the lapse-of-time (weeks, months, or years) – Skyeking reserves as an Editor his editor’s prerogative to restore (suggest / offer / discuss / consensus) all content from the long-standing “original” version (refer here).

It is obvious (reading comprehension) if you can “read-between-the-lines” – that the VHEMT website uses the word “extinction” (attention-getting word, in-context) to “grab the attention” of the overpopulating populace (Homo-sapiens) – whereas, in actuality visitors are offered the following (http://vhemt.org/join.htm):

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Loosely, you can relate to VHEMT concepts in one of three ways:

-*- Undecided....

-*- Supporter

-*- Volunteer

Undecided:
“Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Maybe I am a Supporter or maybe I’m a Volunteer. I would like to know more before I decide.”

VHEMT Supporter:
“Intentional creation of one more of us by any of us is unjustifiable at this time, but extinction of our species goes too far.”

VHEMT Volunteer:
“All of us should voluntarily refrain from reproducing further, bringing about the eventual extinction of Homo-sapiens.”

Supporters and Volunteers make up their own minds about life and what to do with it. Our diversity makes The Movement strong. A wide range of religious, political, and social thought is represented among us.

Even our unofficial motto, “May we live long and die out,” has room for differing opinions – some prefer, “May we live well and die out.”

As explained above, Supporters don’t agree with the “die out” part of the motto.

Millions of people around the planet have independently arrived at the conclusion that Earth’s biosphere would be better off with less (or without) humans. So already, you may have been a Supporter or Volunteer before hearing about the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT – pronounced “vehement”).

Decreasing births is preferable vs. increasing deaths – and voluntary methods are what we advocate. Always remember, one of our key concepts is voluntary – the first word in VHEMT is Voluntary.

Those who advocate involuntary solutions to our population density problems are not advocating for VHEMT when they do such – regardless that they may support VHEMT too.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

SKYEKING:
Obviously, mottos are a form of attention-getting — and the unofficial VHEMT motto was merely designed to “grab the attention” of the overpopulating populace (Homo-sapiens).

The following two videos (content links) were included in the long-standing “original” version (refer here) – and the first video (Focus Earth: No More Children) supports Skyeking’s evaluation of “read-between-the-lines”:

Focus Earth: No More Children (link to video)

Discovery Communications. – Bob Woodruff (Sept. 11, 2009) – VIDEO

Les U. Knight:

“Maybe we could, although we never have, actually live in harmony with the Biosphere. It would be something to try for […].”

(read-between-the-lines)

Les U. Knight (laughing):

“You know Bob, it [VHEMT] hasn’t caught on like I was hoping. I don’t know what we are doing wrong. People are breeding like there is no day after tomorrow.”

(his laugh = read-between-the-lines)

Focus Earth: Too Many People (link to video)

Discovery Communications. – Bob Woodruff (Sept. 12, 2009) – VIDEO

Once again, regardless the lapse-of-time (weeks, months, or years) – Skyeking reserves as an Editor his editor’s prerogative to restore (suggest / offer / discuss / consensus) all content from the long-standing (27-months to develop by primary Editors and others) "original” version (refer here).

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

-***-GUIDELINES to other Editors-***-
“Please” ensure you not post any comments, statements, etc. in this Section (IMPORTANT – Skyeking’s Declaration of Protest and Dispute).

Instead, open a new section if you need further clarification or explanation from Skyeking.

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

SKYEKING - Permanent Note

SUBJECT: Article for Deletion (VHEMT)

Future Event:
The Article for Deletion banner may be removed from the VHEMT Article - Discussion Page. Therefore, maintain said AfD banner information on your User Talk Page. The AfD banner is improperly formatted (Link: "the discussion") because it links to the First nomination--- whereas it should have linked to the Second nomination.

History Log - VHEMT Discussion Page - AfD Banner:
23:42, 3 May 2010 Ron Ritzman
Wikipedia: Articles for Deletion - Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (2nd nomination) closed as "Keep".

FIRST Nomination of AfD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement

SECOND Nomination of AfD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement_(2nd_nomination)

Template: Old AfD multi
(Multiple Articles for Deletion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Old_AfD_multi

Owner of User Talk Page,
Skyeking (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

VHEMT Article - Discussions between Nuujinn and Skyeking

Wikipedia: Civility
(WP:CIV) – (WP:FIVE)

• The purpose of this Section is to provide an area for these two Editors (Nuujinn and Skyeking) to discuss the VHEMT Article.
  

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


TOPIC: VHEMT Article - Removing Article Link

The VHEMT Article supports "Altruism" and the observation (http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#babies) that human beings who breed are merely self-serving . Therefore, the "Altruism" link should remain in the VHEMT Article's See Also section.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you have the wrong guy, and the discussion should be on the VEHMT talk page since it's about content. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

TOPIC: VHEMT Article – Archive Talk Page (October 2010)

Nuujinn, what are your thoughts about archiving some of the VHEMT Article Talk Page Sections?
I would prefer to archive (Archive 1) the following seven Sections:

--- 1 Corrected facts
--- 2 Criticism of ideology
--- 3 Origins
--- 4 No criticism?
--- 5 Notability and single-source
--- 6 Discussion at WP:EAR
--- 7 Re : Notability ; Discovery Channel documentary

In addition, I believe it is essential to retain the following two Sections at the current Article Talk Page:

--- 8 Feedback requested on current version
--- 9 Mediation request

I am a novice about the archiving process, yet I am willing to assume the responsibility of archiving (complete the process to archive).
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

MESSAGE UPDATE:
Nuujinn responded to my request:

"Sounds fine to me, there's not much activity there." --Nuujinn (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Message Update was posted by:
Skyeking (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


TOPIC: VHEMT Article – Archive Talk Page (April 2011)

Nuujinn, what are your thoughts about archiving some of the VHEMT Article Talk Page Sections?
I would prefer to archive (Archive 1) the following four Sections:

--- 1 Feedback requested on current version
--- 2 Use of italics for "voluntary" in lead section
--- 3 RFC: should the word "voluntary" in the lead sentence be in italics?
--- 4 Quotation marks around extinctionists

Yet, I believe it is essential to retain the following Section at the current Article Talk Page:

--- 5 Mediation request

In addition, what are your thoughts about adding some Wiki banners (top of page - Article Talk Page)?
I would prefer to add the following banners:

---1st Banner----"Skip to talk"

---2nd Banner----"talk header"

---3rd Banner----"notforum"

• Title - Banner Template:
  

  I removed the double brackets "{{}}" ---otherwise, the banner displays.

To display the banners you can temporarily add double brackets around the words (i.e. "talk header"----but, first remove the quotation marks " "). Of course, the banner phraseology will be different when it is displayed at the Article Talk Page.

I am a novice about the archiving process, yet I am willing to assume the responsibility of archiving (complete the process to archive).
And, I am willing to post the banners.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Skyeking, sure, go ahead and be bold! --Nuujinn (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In response

In my opinion the links are clearly unfitting and it is you who must show cause for keeping them, if I linked to Obama and Osama bin Laden you wouldn't need any justification to remove them. In my personal observation after viewing the website, the founder is a misanthropic introvert expressing exalted arrogance, supporting for example China's one-child policy with forced sterilizations and abortions being practiced occasionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.241.100 (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I bothered to look in the history and noticed you removed links with with negative connotations like Antihumanism and Misanthropy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.241.100 (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

First, “Thank You” for communicating with me as we attempt to resolve our editing dispute. Second, I have established (arrangement of my User Talk Page) a Section for our discussion: VHEMT Article – Discussion between 207.61.241.100 and Skyeking

I look forward to continuing our discussion.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

VHEMT Article – Discussion between 207.61.241.100 and Skyeking

Wikipedia: Civility
(WP:CIV) – (WP:FIVE)

• The purpose of this Section is to provide an area for these two Editors (207.61.241.100 and Skyeking) to discuss the VHEMT Article.
  

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


TOPIC: VHEMT Article – Removal Of Two Article Links / Dispute Resolution

ARTICLE LINKS:

• Altruism
  
• Morality
  

PROLOGUE:
My style of communication is not meant to be offensive. My intent is to comply with WP:EQ.

CONTINUING DISCUSSION – Skyeking's response:
(continuation from the above Section: “In response”)

207.61.241.100
“In my opinion.....”

Skyeking:
That is a good sentence beginning because opinions are subjective – versus objective (i.e. 2 + 2 = 4).

207.61.241.100
“.....clearly unfitting.....”

Skyeking:
That is merely a subjective statement. And I disagree with it.

207.61.241.100
“.....it is you who must show cause.....”

Skyeking:
Why? Your rational is based on your previous statement “…clearly unfitting…” – which I disagreed with.

207.61.241.100
“.....if I linked to Obama.....”

Skyeking:
Your statement is an ad hominem (also known as argumentum ad hominem). The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy (argumentum ad Hitlerum). Therefore, your statement is irrelevant to our argument.

207.61.241.100
“In my personal observation.....”

Skyeking:
That is a good sentence beginning because observations are subjective – versus objective (i.e. 2 + 2 = 4).

207.61.241.100
“.....the founder is.....”

Skyking:
Your statement(s) is erroneous, unsubstantiated, spurious, subjective, and so on. You are merely arguing a personal belief.

Definition of belief (conjecture):
Confidence in an opinion without justified proof.

207.61.241.100
“By the way.....removed links.....Antihumanism and Misanthropy.”

Skyking:
Yes, you’re correct, I did edit the article link antihumanism (philosophy / metaphysical) because it’s non-related to the VHEMT article. And again, my edit of the article link misanthropy (social psychology) is for the same reason. Unfortunately, the Editor (Shanoman) who inserted those article links failed to completely understand the meaning or correct usage of those terms.

By the way, I don’t assign emotional coloration to words. Whereas, you assigned a cultural and/or emotional coloration to the two terms, which causes me to suspect that you too don’t completely understand the meaning or correct usage of those terms.

Definition of connotation:
A subjective cultural and/or emotional coloration in addition to the explicit or denotative meaning of any specific word or phrase in a language (i.e. emotional association with a word).


SUMMARY:

• The current argument of 207.61.241.100 is that the VHEMT Article will be improved if two article links (“Altruism” / “Morality”) are removed.
  

• The current argument of Skyeking is that the VHEMT Article will not be improved if the two article links are removed.
  

PENDING:
Hopefully, you agree that we should continue our discussion, with the objective being a further understanding of how to resolve our editing dispute. If you disagree with my suggestion, then please offer your final (closing) statements.

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC):
«««»»»Awaiting response from 207.61.241.100«««»»»


FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

VHEMT Article History (Section: See Also)

• Altruism
  
• Morality
  
• Antihumanism
  
• Misanthropy
  

05:38, 11 November 2005 – 216.244.216.2
Editor created the article section See Also with an article link to “Altruism”.

23:31, 25 May 2007 – Shanoman
Editor created two article links “Antihumanism” / “Misanthropy”.

20:02, 14 October 2009 – Skyeking
Editor created the article link “Morality”.

NOTE:
My first edits (extensive revision) to the VHEMT Article began on October 13, 2009. Prior to that date I (Skyeking) wasn’t an Editor.
Skyeking (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Started my approach in that manner considering your assertion:
"The VHEMT Article supports "Altruism" and the observation (http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#babies) that human beings who breed are merely self-serving . Therefore, the "Altruism" link should remain in the VHEMT Article's See Also section."
So, why don't you elaborate? You should point out how the article supports altruism (from the dictionary: "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others"), also the second claim is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.241.100 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

SKYEKING Response:
First, I applaud you for your willingness to resolve our editing disagreement. Second, I’m thankful for your tolerance of my written communication style.

Now, continuing our discussion.....

207.61.241.100
“So, why don’t you elaborate?”

Skyeking:
Elaborate is a subjective word. For me, the following is sufficient detail:

“VHEMT is a movement of individuals who practice unselfish actions, which in turn, produces the greatest benefit to others, and said actions are accomplished because of an overwhelming desire (concern) to contribute significantly to the well-being of people, coexisting species, and planet Earth (biosphere / Gaia philosophy).”

The article link altruism is applicable to the VHEMT Article because it provides a Wikipedia reader (researcher) additional insight about the actions of those who are influenced by the movement.


207.61.241.100
“.....also the second claim is biased.”

Skyeking:
Please clarify the end part of your statement, “.....second claim is biased.”

What second claim? What are you referring to?


SUMMARY:

• The current argument of 207.61.241.100 is that the VHEMT Article will be improved if two article links (“Altruism” / “Morality”) are removed.
  

• The current argument of Skyeking is that the VHEMT Article will not be improved if the two article links are removed.
  

PENDING:
Hopefully, you agree that we should continue our discussion, with the objective being a further understanding of how to resolve our editing dispute. If you disagree with my suggestion, then please offer your final (closing) statements.

Once again, I applaud you for your willingness to resolve our editing disagreement.

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC):
«««»»»Awaiting response from 207.61.241.100«««»»»

Altruism is a behavior that benefits others, having a vasectomy due to the "overwhelming desire (concern) to contribute significantly to the well-being of..." has nothing to do with philanthropy. Referring to "human beings who breed are merely self-serving" in contrast to the "altruism" sustained by the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.241.100 (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, committing suicide for the same reason VHEMT supporters don't reproduce can't be characterized as altruistic, besides cutting the bloodline all the resources that would have been consumed during the lifetime would be freed up, but that has no impact on relieving the pressure on the planet or helping the impoverished. Giving spare change to a beggar is altruistic.

SKYEKING Response:
Now, continuing our discussion.....

207.61.241.100
“Altruism…..with philanthropy.”

Skyeking:
You are merely stating your erroneous assumption (conjecture) that those who choose to be childless underwent a vasectomy (or Essure). Plus, your comparison (context) is corrupt.

And you are ignoring the plurality of the word actions. In addition, you’re confused about the usage and definitions for – actions / behavior – thereby making it more difficult to understand your communication.

There is a fine line between the definitions for – altruism / philanthropy. Nevertheless, there is a line, therefore since this discussion is about the word altruism, then that is the proper word to use. Otherwise, you are causing ineffective communication.

Definition of assumption:
An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.


207.61.241.100
“Referring to…..in…..article.”

Skyeking:
The facts speak for themselves. Therefore it’s moot; irrelevant to discuss.


207.61.241.100
“To clarify…..besides…..but…..impoverished.”

Skyeking:
You are merely expressing your nebulous thought patterns – which isn’t conducive to resolving our editing dispute. There is ample evidence of scientific proof about human overpopulation – which disputes your erroneous statements. You can use the Internet to investigate.

VHEMovemenT is a denotation to worldwide concepts. As such, it isn’t a company, business, organization (formal or informal), government entity, et cetera. Once again, VHEMT is only about concepts.

Definition of denotation:
The most specific or direct meaning of a word, in contrast to its figurative or associated meanings.


207.61.241.100
“Giving…..altruistic.”

Skyeking:
Your statement is meritless because it’s a verbal manipulation tool used in psychiatry (imagery – patient subconsciously assumes one of the two roles). As such, it’s not proper for our discussion.

NOTE:
The picture is about social psychology (learned behavior).

The Roman Legionnaire has his arms positioned vertical (fingers spread) as a clearly demonstrated warning to the impoverished (underprivileged) man and child – if they (man or child) touch, rise, or move toward the wealthy noblewoman, he (soldier) will immediately attack them, and the result will be serious bodily harm, or death – the decision privilege belongs to the Legionnaire.

Altruism? – I think not.


SUMMARY:

• The current argument of 207.61.241.100 is that the VHEMT Article will be improved if two article links (“Altruism” / “Morality”) are removed.
  

• The current argument of Skyeking is that the VHEMT Article will not be improved if the two article links are removed.
  

PENDING:
Hopefully, you agree that we should continue our discussion, with the objective being a further understanding of how to resolve our editing dispute. If you disagree with my suggestion, then please offer your final (closing) statements.

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC):
«««»»»Awaiting response from 207.61.241.100«««»»»

Altrusim is motivated by the desire to benefit others. The behavior promoted by VHEMT may arise out of empathic concern of the welfare of other individuals but as long as no positive consequences follow-up for anyone, is it altruism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.241.100 (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

SKYEKING Response:
Now, continuing our discussion.....

207.61.241.100
“Altruism is.....others.”

Skyeking:
Altruism is.....(for definition read this link – and this link)


207.61.241.100
The.....concern.....other individuals.....”

Skyeking:
The concepts listed at the VHEMT web site merely reflect the actions of individuals who practice selfless concern for the well-being of others, which in turn, produces the greatest benefit to others.


207.61.241.100
“.....as long.....positive.....altruism?”

Skyeking:
Magicians who practice card tricks would declare that your question is a “set deck, with prearranged cards” – and a closed-ended question. Therefore, I choose to answer your question with this analogy (think globally):

There are 10 puppies that have access to 7 bowls full of drinkable water, and 7 bowls full of edible food. The bowls (normal sized for puppies) of food and water are replenished once a week. Two of the puppies disappear. Coincidentally, 1 bowl of water and 1 bowl of food disappear. Then, two more puppies disappear. And then, three puppies disappear.

Obviously, as some of the puppies disappear, the remaining puppies have more food and water. These events are a positive – and can be attributed to the unselfish actions of individuals who understand altruistic concepts.


SUMMARY:

• The current argument of 207.61.241.100 is that the VHEMT Article will be improved if two article links (“Altruism” / “Morality”) are removed.
  

• The current argument of Skyeking is that the VHEMT Article will not be improved if the two article links are removed.
  

PENDING:
Do you agree that we should begin offering our final (closing) statements about how to resolve our editing dispute? If you disagree with my suggestion, then what do you propose?

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC):
«««»»»Awaiting response from 207.61.241.100«««»»»

"which in turn, produces the greatest benefit to others"
The reason this wasn't settled already is that you so far fail to demonstrate how any person whether living or unborn would benefit from those actions.
"Obviously, as some of the puppies disappear, the remaining puppies have more food and water. These events are a positive – and can be attributed to the unselfish actions of individuals who understand altruistic concepts."
Nice allegory but in real life population aging has profound economic and social implications. You can see on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate that developed countries have birth rates behind replacement levels, on the long term this will cause major challenges. http://vhemt.org/economics.htm is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.241.100 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

SKYEKING Response:
You failed to provide me distinct (clearly defined) answers to:

• Do you agree that we should begin offering our final (closing) statements about how to resolve our editing dispute?
  

• If you disagree with my suggestion, then what do you propose?
  

When are you going to answer those two questions?

I do not agree to a continuation of our editing debate about altruism, yet my personal courtesy to you – while I await your answer for the two questions – is that I will reluctantly continue our discussion.....


PROLOGUE:

An altruistic act isn’t a “numbers game”.

You offered the example of one person unselfishly giving another person (beggar) money because he/she (with money) was unselfishly concerned for the well-being of that individual. You defined your example of this one-on-one interaction as altruistic.

Yet, you refuse to apply your definition of an altruistic act to my simple (easy to understand) allegory. That is unreasonable because there are not any differences between your example and my allegory – moot; irrelevant to discuss.

Definition of example:
Something that is representative of a group as a whole.

Definition of unreasonable:
Exceeding reasonable limits; immoderate; refusing to listen to reason.


207.61.241.100
“…..which in……others.”

Skyeking:
You are applying the statement out of context. Therefore, your logic thereafter is erroneous.


207.61.241.100
“The reason…..demonstrate…..actions.”

Skyeking:
I disagree – moot; irrelevant to discuss.


207.61.241.100
“Nice allegory…..implications.”

Skyeking:
Your logic is erroneous, and you digress into your “numbers game”. Basically, your entire premise is erroneous. The mathematical proof to dispel and refute your statement is at this link (think globally).

NOTE:
The Population Clock numbers will change every three-seconds if you refresh (reload) the web page – key the refresh button of your web browser (Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and so on).

The numbers do not go down; they continually (3-seconds / 60 seconds / 1-minute / 1-hour / 24 hours / 7 days / 365 days) go UP.
And have done so for decades (or lustrum); with exponential population growth (globally) occurring after year 1901 A.D.

Does your “numbers game” have anything to do with altruism? – (altruism; proper context to this editing dispute discussion).
The correct and irrefutable answer is: “No.”
Therefore, this is the end of my communication to you about “numbers”.


SUMMARY:

• The current argument of 207.61.241.100 is that the VHEMT Article will be improved if two article links (“Altruism” / “Morality”) are removed.
  

• The current argument of Skyeking is that the VHEMT Article will not be improved if the two article links are removed.
  

PENDING:
Do you agree that we should begin offering our final (closing) statements about how to resolve our editing dispute? If you disagree with my suggestion, then what do you propose?

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC):
«««»»»Awaiting response from 207.61.241.100«««»»»

"Do you agree that we should begin offering our final (closing) statements about how to resolve our editing dispute?"
How can it be resolved if you fail to show the correlation?
"Your logic is erroneous, and you digress into your “numbers game”. Basically, your entire premise is erroneous. The mathematical proof to dispel and refute your statement is at this link (think globally)."
Can't think globally because the world isn't a village, from the link I posted earlier, the Fertility rate (2005-2010) (births/woman) for Niger is 7.19 while for Germany it is 1.36, for example. A Nigerian VHEMT supporter may be rightfully considered altruistic but a German one can't because he isn't benefiting anyone, his nation is decaying, retired elderly people exponentially outnumbering the working age population.
http://vhemt.org/anobreed.htm This shows it is driven by a confused agenda, nothing to do with altruism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.241.100 (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

SKYEKING Response:
Now, continuing our discussion.....

207.61.241.100
“How.....resolved.....?

Skyeking:
My suggestion (and choice) is a different level; Wikipedia Dispute Resolution.


207.61.241.100
“Can’t think globally.....”

Skyeking:
Your premise is erroneous because village numbers merely comprise the global numbers (primary). As I’ve stated before, I’m not going to play a “numbers game”.


207.61.241.100
“A Nigerian.....rightfully considered altruistic.....”

Skeyking:
Therefore, that is an altruistic action(s) which the Nigerian freely chose. Any reasonable person would consider the Nigerian’s action(s) altruistic – hence, the altruism article link is applicable to the VHEMT Article – though a singular factor, this Nigerian is representative of
a concept. The factor is also an exponential.

The remainder of your statement is meritless because altruism is not a “numbers game” – moot; irrelevant to discuss.

Once again, the VHEMT web site is merely a “list of concepts” – not an organization (formal or informal) of any type. You and I are supposed to be communicating about the main topic; which is about a concept – not about a web site. The web site is merely a reflection of the concept, and the web site itself is irrelevant to the idea.

You used the term “VHEMT supporter” – definition:

“Intentional creation of one more of us by any of us is unjustifiable at this time, but extinction of our species goes too far.”

My presumption is that the vast majority of individuals who practice the concept are unaware of the VHEMT web site, or the classifications of “supporter” – “volunteer”. Plus, other people who are aware of the web site. Aware or unaware is irrelevant – (x + y + z = altruism):

x = uncoerced decision (no birth / no reward)
y = unselfish action (no birth / no reward)
z = produces benefits to others


207.61.241.100
http://vhemt.org/anobreed.htm
This shows it is driven by a confused agenda, nothing to do with altruism.

Skyeking:
Once again, you digress into your discussion about the VHEMT web site. Our editing dispute is not about a web site (or person – i.e. Les U. Knight). Our editing dispute is about altruism and how it does (or does not) apply to the concept.

NOTE:
The following is stated at the top of the web page you linked:

“A wide range of political orientations exists within The Movement. Although I personally favor anarchy, many Volunteers and
Supporters do not.

– Les U. Knight

Definition of anarchist (Government, Politics & Diplomacy):
A person who advocates the abolition of government and a social system based on voluntary cooperation.

Do your statements about the VHEMT web site have anything to do with altruism? – (altruism; proper context to this editing dispute).
The correct and irrefutable answer is: “No.”
Therefore, this is the end of my communication to you about the VHEMT web site.
Caution, be aware that I mean the VHEMT web site – not the concept. Our editing dispute about the altruism article link remains active.


SUMMARY:

• The current argument of 207.61.241.100 is that the VHEMT Article will be improved if two article links (“Altruism” / “Morality”) are removed.
  

• The current argument of Skyeking is that the VHEMT Article will not be improved if the two article links are removed.
  

PENDING:

• 207.61.241.100 should declare what his/her Level choice (WP:DRR) is for continuation of the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution. Doing so contributes to resolving our editing dispute.
  

The choice of 207.61.241.100 is subject to agreement by Skyeking – that statement is merely a clarification (WP:EQ); Skyeking may agree or disagree with the choice.

If you disagree with my suggestion, then what do you propose?

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC):
«««»»»Awaiting response from 207.61.241.100«««»»»

"My suggestion (and choice) is a different level; Wikipedia Dispute Resolution."
Should clarify a very simple notion first. Please explain why you don't consider it inaccurate to characterize as altruistic the concept that all people ought to stop reproducing which may help increase the GDP per capita if applied in impoverished areas such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (6.70) but on the other hand it can have disastrous implications in Russia (1.34) for example. I'm not the one playing a “numbers game”, you're assuming that acknowledging the population increase, depopulation is universally beneficial, not taking in consideration the social and economical implications.

"z = produces benefits to others"
If under certain circumstances it produces benefits to others while in a different context it only aggravates a problem? y is obviously under question too since those practicing the concept have their own personal motivations, not willing to take the responsibility, to invest time and financial expenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.241.100 (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

SKYEKING Response:
Now, continuing our discussion.....

207.61.241.100
“Should.....first.”

Skyeking:
My suggestion (and choice) is a different level; Wikipedia Dispute Resolution.


207.61.241.100
“Please explain.....the concept that all.....stop reproducing”

Skyeking:
Your premise is erroneous. Your usage of “all” is a limited definition of the concept, and to clarify the concept (not plural – “the concept” is a relative term about human population control) I will paraphrase:

Harry (male) / Mary (female) – seeking knowledge:

“Should we birth? We need to know more before we decide.”

Mentor #1:

“At this time, it would be unjustified for either of you (and everyone else) to intentionally create another human, maybe birth in the future.”

(implausible event; "decision dependent" by all humans)

Mentor #2:

“Both of you should refrain (as should everyone) from birth, now or in the future, thereby bringing about the eventual extinction
of Homo Sapiens”.

(implausible event; "decision dependent" by all humans)

For quick reference I used the phraseology of the VHEMT web site, yet the concept (human population control) has existed for centuries. You can use the Internet to investigate.


207.61.241.100
“.....which may.....areas such.....but on.....example.”

Skyeking:
Your numbers are outdated as we speak (population clock). Yet, are positive numbers (continual population growth). Plus, you are merely offering your personal projection (conjecture) – none of your numbers have anything to do with our main topic – moot; irrelevant to discuss.

My final summary is: I disagree with you.


207.61.241.100
"I’m not the one playing a “numbers game”

Skyeking:
Previously, I used the term six (6) times, and you didn’t question usage of the term. Therefore, I assumed you understood the term “numbers game”. Regardless, my phraseology wasn’t meant to offend you; my apologies.

Definition of “numbers game”:
A board-game in which the numbers are constantly changing – i.e. “My luck will change when I roll these dice.”

NOTE:
The term is applicable because as I write this statement the numbers have changed again, uh oh the numbers changed again, oh no changed again, and so on....................


207.61.241.100
“…..population increase…..taking in……implications.”

Skyeking:
My final summary is: I disagree with you.


207.61.241.100
“If…..others while…..since those…..concept…..to take the…..expenses.”

Skyeking:
I have repeatedly stated I will not argue numbers. I will not assign relevancy to your numbers game, future projections (conjecture), guesstimates, etc. – and your repetition of such isn’t conducive to resolving our editing dispute – moot; irrelevant to discuss.

My final summary is: I disagree with you.


SUMMARY:

• The current argument of 207.61.241.100 is that the VHEMT Article will be improved if two article links (“Altruism” / “Morality”) are removed.
  

• The current argument of Skyeking is that the VHEMT Article will not be improved if the two article links are removed.
  

PENDING:

• 207.61.241.100 should declare what his/her Level choice (WP:DRR) is for continuation of the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution. Doing so contributes to resolving our editing dispute.
  

The choice of 207.61.241.100 is subject to agreement by Skyeking – that statement is merely a clarification (WP:EQ); Skyeking may agree or disagree with the choice.

If you disagree with my suggestion, then what do you propose?

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC):
«««»»»Awaiting response from 207.61.241.100«««»»»

Whatever, add a request... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.241.100 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

SKYEKING Response:
Now, continuing our discussion.....

207.61.241.100
“Whatever, add a request.....”

Skyeking:
I have filed a Dispute Resolution Request (WP:DRR). There are areas in the Mediation Cabal template that require your input. You can view the DRR at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_Medcab_new_cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-17/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC):
«««»»»Awaiting response from 207.61.241.100«««»»»

VHEMT Article – Discussion between RLent and Skyeking

Wikipedia: Civility
(WP:CIV) – (WP:FIVE)

The purpose of this Section is to provide an area for these two Editors (RLent and Skyeking) to discuss the VHEMT Article.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


TOPIC: VHEMT Article – Removal Of Two Article Links / Dispute Resolution

ARTICLE LINKS:

• Altruism
  
• Morality
  

PREAMBLE:
My style of written communication is not meant to be offensive, and is due to medical reasons (privacy). My intent is to comply with WP:EQ.

CONTINUING DISCUSSION – Skyeking's response:
(continuation from the Article Talk Page)

RLent (quoted from the Article Talk Page - November 9, 2010):
"I object to both the Altruism and the Morality links being included. Including them is POV."

Skyeking:
Question to RLent, have you read the entire Section: VHEMT Article – Discussion between 207.61.241.100 and Skyeking


SUMMARY:

• The current argument of RLent is that the VHEMT Article will be improved if two article links (“Altruism” / “Morality”) are removed.
  

• The current argument of Skyeking is that the VHEMT Article will not be improved if the two article links are removed.
  

PENDING:
Hopefully, you agree that we should continue our discussion, with the objective being a further understanding of how to resolve our editing dispute. If you disagree with my suggestion, then please offer your final (closing) statements.

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
«««»»»Awaiting response from RLent«««»»»



PREAMBLE - November 19, 2010:
RLent is intolerant about my medical condition (privacy), and he has chosen to ignore my request to conduct our written communication at my User Talk Page. Regardless, I have copied (quoted) his statements from the VHEMT Article Talk Page (Section: Feedback requested on current version) to this User Talk Page Section----and I have responded to his statements.

CONTINUING DISCUSSION – Skyeking’s response:
(continuation from the VHEMT Article Talk Page – Section: Feedback requested on current version)

The following RLent statements were posted as: RLent (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

RLent:
“Putting links to altruism and morality is a POV attempt to give the impression that VHEMT is altruistic and moral.”

Skyeking:
Your statement is confused. Your viewpoint is based on VHEMT being an entity vs. merely a reflection about human population control concepts. Therefore, you are only considering VHEMT as an entity, yet Les U. Knight clearly states the VHEMT web site is not an organization----it is only a reflection about human population control concepts.

RLent:
“Let the reader decide for themselves if it is moral or not, the article shouldn't judge it for us.”

Skyeking:
What do you mean (definitive) by “it”? Human population control concepts are part of a “moral” decision (breed / not breed)----therefore, the article link Morality is applicable. And an article link is not a “judgment”----it is merely a link to additional information.

RLent:
“What should and what should not be in the article should be discussed here.”

Skyeking:
Why? Other Editors can easily reference our (you and me) discussion at my User Talk Page. All web browsers have the capability to open numerous web pages at the same time. And I assure you, our discussion will not be convoluted at my User Talk Page vs. the Article Talk Page.

RLent:
“You seem to think that it is obvious that VHEMT is altruistic, but this is by no means clear.”

Skyeking:
I know that you failed to read (comprehend?) the entire Section: VHEMT Article – Discussion between 207.61.241.100 and Skyeking

It is “quite clear” that in the proper context human population control concepts are altruistic. Again, our discussion is not about the VHEMT web site----it is about how altruism (proper context) applies to human population control concepts.

RLent:
“Some people would find VHEMT immoral, but I would be against a link to immorality as well.”

Skyeking:
Your statement is phrased with improper context; thereby making it invalid.

RLent:
“And what could possibly be more misanthropic than an organization which says that homo sapiens ought not even exist? Yet I'm not pushing for a link to misanthropy.”

Skyeking:
You are confused----VHEMT is not an organization. And, it is obvious that the VHEMT web site has a “hidden agenda”----which is to create controversy----thereby, causing/motivating (hidden agenda) people to discuss human overpopulation. Yet, I digress into a discussion about the VHEMT web site----and that is not what our discussion is about----it is about human population control concepts.

RLent:
“The belief that reproduction is a selfish act does not mean that judging this group can be judged to be altruistic by anything vaguely resembling an objective standard.”

Skyeking:
You are confused----VHEMT is not a “group”. And I have previously stated the objective standard:

My presumption is that the vast majority of individuals who practice the concept (human population control) are unaware of the VHEMT web site, or the classifications of “supporter” – “volunteer”. Plus, other people who are aware of the web site. Aware or unaware is irrelevant – (x + y + z = altruism):

x = uncoerced decision (no birth / no reward)

y = unselfish action (no birth / no reward)

z = produces benefits to others

The following RLent statements were posted as: RLent (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

RLent:
“This article currently has five links: Altruism, Antinatalism, Childfree, Morality and Total fertility rate.”

Skyeking:
You are correct, as of November 18, 2010 those are the article links in the “See Also” section of the VHEMT Article.

RLent:
“Even if we were to grant that VHEMT is moral and altruistic, that doesn't justify the links, we would have to then go about adding these links to every article where someone claims the subject is moral and altruistic.”

Skyeking:
You are merely expressing your nebulous thought patterns – which is not conducive to resolving our editing dispute. And you continually apply an improper context to the two article links----thereby invalidating your argument(s).

RLent:
“I have no intention of editing the article; it would just result in an edit war anyway.”

Skyeking:
Regarding the first part of your statement; I applaud your editing decision.

Regarding the second part of your statement; I am unaware of any Editors being involved in an “edit war”----though I have asked one Editor to participate in Mediation (dispute resolution).


SUMMARY:

• The current argument of RLent is that the VHEMT Article will be improved if two article links (Altruism / Morality) are removed-----yet, RLent’s decision is to not remove the article links.

• The current argument of Skyeking is that the VHEMT Article will not be improved if the two article links are removed.
  

CLOSING STATEMENT – Skyeking:
Once again, I applaud your editing decision----you will not remove the two article links: Altruism / Morality.
As needed, and for the future, whenever we have an editing dispute (dispute resolution) I am willing to converse and/or mediate with you.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
«««»»»Awaiting response from RLent«««»»»

VHEMT Article – Discussion between Bobrayner and Skyeking

Wikipedia: Civility
(WP:CIV) – (WP:FIVE)

The purpose of this Section is to provide an area for these two Editors (Bobrayner and Skyeking) to discuss the VHEMT Article.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

PREAMBLE:
My style of written communication is not meant to be offensive, and is due to medical reasons (privacy). My intent is to comply with WP:EQ.


CONTINUING DISCUSSION – Skyeking’s response:
(continuation from the VHEMT Article Talk Page – Section: Feedback requested on current version)

The following Bobrayner statements were posted as: bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Bobrayner:
“Your medical condition…..should not determine what other people can say whilst discussing improvements to this article."

Skyeking:
Are you fooling? Are you still upset from the Mediation Cabal case?
Your statement is illogical. Other Editors have freely discussed article improvements at the Article Talk Page, and my discussions with them have been a combination of my User Talk Page and the Article Talk Page.

Bobrayner:
“You do not own this article.”

Skyeking:
Why are you stating the obvious? Do you have a hidden agenda?
Do you understand the difference between stewardship and ownership? Read WP:OAS
If so, and your evaluation is that I am practicing ownership; then you must provide me logical evidence (definitive and unambiguous) of such.

Bobrayner:
“Please don’t accuse people of being intolerant and deceitful.”

Skyeking:
Why? There was an obvious hidden agenda in the phraseology of RLent’s statement “…..not tucked away in someone’s talk page.” And the same applies to your statement.

Bobrayner:
“Such discussions should, ideally, be here.”

Skyeking:
My medical condition is not “ideal”. Therefore, WP:IAR applies to my request for a slight deviation in my written communication with other Editors. It is not unreasonable to ask other Editors to be tolerant of my medical condition.
And, at the Article Talk Page, I post a notice about where my continuation of a discussion is located---click on the Link (location), and open it with an additional web browser tab---doing so is simple and easy, nothing difficult about it.

Bobrayner:
“It is neither unreasonable nor deceitful to expect an Article’s Talk Page to be the place where people discuss improvements to the article.”

Skyeking:
Your comparison is a corrupt context. RLent’s phraseology (with hidden agenda) was unreasonable and deceitful.

Bobrayner:
“Moving comments to your User Talk Page makes it difficult for people to follow the discussion, and can only increase worries about an ownership problem.”

Skyeking:
Your statement is unsubstantiated. You have not provided any logical evidence of such.
Considering my medical condition, you should provide a minimum of ten examples (logical, definitive, and unambiguous) to support your two issues (User Talk Page = 5 examples / Ownership = 5 examples).

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
«««»»»Awaiting response from Bobrayner«««»»»

Why the need to discuss an article on a user talk page?

Skyeking, your request to discuss an article on your talk page instead of the article's talk page might get more sympathy if you were to provide some information about your medical condition. While we may all assume good faith Wikipedians might be more inclined to heed your request (which is a variation from the normal practice) if we had some idea why it was so important to you. Obviously your privacy is important, so there's no need to go into details, but surely you could give us some reason. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

CONTINUING DISCUSSION – Skyeking’s response:

PREAMBLE:
The purpose of this Section is to provide an area for these two Editors (Mitch Ames and Skyeking) to discuss the VHEMT Article.
My style of written communication is not meant to be offensive, and is due to medical reasons (privacy). My intent is to comply with WP:EQ.


Mitch Ames:
“Skyeking, your request to discuss an article on your talk page instead of the article’s talk page might get more sympathy if you were to provide some information about your medical condition.”

Skyeking:
Have you read (comprehend) WP:IAR / WP:BURO / WP:FIVE? If so, then you should understand that it "is reasonable" for me to ask other Editors to be tolerant of my medical condition.

Regarding my written communication (article improvements / general information) with other Editors, I use a combination of both my User Talk Page and the Article Talk Page----such is in compliance with Wikipedia Polices / Guidelines (in addition, read the banners at the top of that page).

The privacy of my medical records (condition) is my legal right.

Definition of tolerance: Leeway for variation from a standard.


Mitch Ames:
While we may all assume good faith Wikipedians might be more inclined to heed your request (which is a variation from the normal practice) if we had some idea why it was so important to you.

Skyeking:
Your statement is ambiguous. Regardless, my “good faith” edits have improved Wikipedia.


Mitch Ames:
Obviously your privacy is important, so there's no need to go into details, but surely you could give us some reason.

Skyeking:
(Rhetorical Questions)

• In proper context, is the phraseology of “medical condition” easy to understand?

• Am I required to qualify my medical condition? Is it rude to ask for such?

• Is my privacy (legal right) to be violated because there are a few Editors who question my “good faith”?

• Have 100-percent of my edits been in “good faith” (of course there were some editing errors---which I apologized for, and corrected)?
  

Mitch Ames stated, “…..but surely you could give us some reason.”
I have continually provided a reason; medical condition.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

VHEMT Article – Discussion between Mitch Ames and Skyeking

Wikipedia: Civility
(WP:CIV) – (WP:FIVE)

The purpose of this Section is to provide an area for these two Editors (Mitch Ames and Skyeking) to discuss the VHEMT Article.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


TOPIC: VHEMT Article – Use of italics for “voluntary” (Article Lead) / Dispute Resolution

PREAMBLE:
My style of written communication is not meant to be offensive, and is due to medical reasons (privacy). My intent is to comply with WP:EQ.


CONTINUING DISCUSSION – Skyeking’s response:
(continuation from the VHEMT Article Talk Page – Section: Use of italics for “voluntary” in lead section)

The following Mitch Ames statements were posted as: Mitch Ames (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ames:
“There’s been no discussion on this for a while.”

Skyeking:
So, you are continuing our discussion about our editing disagreement.

At this time, I am not including “Nuujinn” or “Mike R” because they did not offer a statement of elaboration or substantiation.
And WP:CONS (consensus) states:

“When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion...”

Ames:
“I still think that the italics should not be there.”

Skyeking:
My justification to italicize the word “voluntary” is defined by Wikipedia Guideline - Manual of Style (quote):

“Italics may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers....”

It is obvious that Editors have a responsibility to provide “ease of understanding (comprehension)” to the Readers (researchers). Doing such enhances Wikipedia’s reputation and improves Wikipedia.

What Wikipedia Policy/Guideline are you using to support your argument?

Thus far, you are not disputing the WP Guideline of “...may otherwise not be apparent to readers...” Instead, you are stating personal arguments about (1) “make a point” and (2) “stress a contrast”. Your assumption is that the mere use of italics is somehow creating “make a point”.

I discovered your two paraphrased arguments “make a point” and “stress a contrast”----were actually a corrupt meaning of the WP Guideline statement---you misused the word paraphrase in your statement---so, you applied a corrupt context to your argument; thereby invalidating your argument.

Definition of paraphrase:
Clarification of original meaning (easier to understand; elucidate).

NOTE (insightful):
Previously, you agreed with an Article edit by Nuujinn---and that edit was an “incomplete statement of the facts” (editing error, failure to provide all facts – verifiability). Hence, I am justified to question your judgment (remove italics from the word “voluntary”).

Article Talk Page – statement of agreement (Mitch Ames):

“It’s an issue for me because I’m a stickler for accuracy, and I don’t think that the original sentence was verifiably correct. Your new version is much better, and so I thank you for that."

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ames:
“Mike R appears to agree, but declined to comment here (I did ask).”

Skyeking:
Yes, and he declined to answer you at his User Talk Page.

NOTE (friendly intent):
Regarding your phraseology (Mike R Talk Page), it could be construed as “canvassing” (violation of behavioral Guideline).

SOURCE LINK

“However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate.”

Ames:
“So it appears to be two against the italics (Mitch Ames, Mike R) and one for the italics (Skyeking).”

Skyeking:
Why are you counting people?

Ames:
"Skyeking, do you still insist that the italics should be there?"

Skyeking:
Yes. I am diametrically opposed to your questionable argument (lacking substantiation by Wikipedia Policy / Guideline). You are ignoring the WP Guideline that supports my argument. Plus, you have not refuted (overthrow by argument) the WP Guideline statement.

Ames:
"If so, I propose we request a third opinion or ask for more comments."

Skyeking:
Your statement is questionable.

SOURCE LINK

“If more than two editors are involved, Third Opinion is not appropriate.”

“Third Opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors.”

SOURCE LINK

“Requests for Comments are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.”

There are numerous consensus-building pitfalls and errors---so, we need to be cautious.


SUMMARY:

• The current argument of Mitch Ames is that the VHEMT Article will be improved if the italics are removed from the word “voluntary”.

• The current argument of Skyeking is that the VHEMT Article will not be improved if the italics are removed from the word “voluntary”.

PENDING:
Hopefully, you agree that we should continue our discussion, with the objective being a further understanding of how to resolve our editing dispute. If you disagree with my suggestion, then please offer your final (closing) statements.

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
«««»»»Awaiting response from Mitch Ames«««»»»



PREAMBLE:

• Regarding our January 12, 2011 discussion---I am awaiting your answers to my legitimate questions.
• My responses may be delayed 72-hours or more (business travel).
  
• At this time, I am not including “Shii” because he did not offer a statement of elaboration or substantiation.

CONTINUING DISCUSSION – Skyeking’s response:
(continuation from the VHEMT Article Talk Page – Section: 3.1 RFC: should the word “voluntary” in the lead sentence be in italics?)

The following Mitch Ames statements were posted as: Mitch Ames (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Mitch Ames:
“One possible solution to this dispute is to remove the italics from the lead sentence (where I believe it is inappropriate editorializing), but add some extra text to the Criticism section.”

Skyeking:
Your accusation about me “editorializing” is a falsehood. And, stating such is not conducive to resolving our editing dispute. I challenge you to PROVE (logical and unambiguous evidence) how my implementation of the authoritative WP Guideline sentence is “editorializing”.

Definition of editorialize:
To insert a personal opinion.

Definition of evidence:
Data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood.

I am diametrically opposed to your questionable proposal (not a solution)---and it is sidetracking this editing dispute.

Definition of sidetracking:
- To deviate from a main issue.
- To distract from a main subject or topic.

An objective of the Article Lead is to consider the Readers needs---and italicizing “voluntary” is in compliance with the statements listed in the first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia Guideline – Article Lead (refer to Source Link):

SOURCE LINK

“.....most important aspects.....establish context.....most important points.....emphasis given.....reflect its importance to the topic.....”

Mitch Ames:
“This new text.....the article.”

NOTE (by Skyeking):
Complete statement located at the Article Talk Page.

Skyeking:
Thus far, your generalized arguments have failed to persuade me that your viewpoint has more validity than my implementation of the authoritative WP Guideline statement. I am not swayed by your tactic of offering questionable proposals (sidetracking this editing dispute)---and doing such is not conducive to resolving our editing dispute. Whereas, an in-depth discussion about the authoritative WP Guideline statement will help us to further our understanding.
SOURCE LINK

“Italics may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers...”

That sentence states “...draw attention...important word...thrust of the sentence...”

NOTE:
An “essay” is not authoritative. And said essay does not overrule your obligation to participate in an in-depth discussion about my implementation of the WP Guideline statement (authoritative).


Mitch Ames:
"Skyeking, do you have any objections to this solution?"

Skyeking:
I reject your questionable proposal (not a solution)---and I will use your previous statement (paraphrase):

“While I appreciate your attempt at compromise, I don’t believe that we should be ‘trading off’ one issue against another. The issues are independent and should be discussed – and negotiated or compromised on – independently, each on their own merits.”

I will not “trade off” an in-depth discussion about the authoritative WP Guideline statement. Thus far, your generalized discussion has not focused on the main topic---my reasonable implementation of the authoritative WP Guideline statement.

And, as a reminder (friendly intent):
SOURCE LINK

“Requests for Comment are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.”

SUMMARY

• The current argument of Mitch Ames is that the VHEMT Article will be improved if the italics are removed from the word “voluntary”.

• The current argument of Skyeking is that the VHEMT Article will not be improved if the italics are removed from the word “voluntary”.

PENDING
Hopefully, you agree that we should continue our discussion, with the objective being a further understanding of how to resolve our editing dispute. If you disagree with my suggestion, then please offer your final (closing) statements.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
«««»»»Awaiting response from Mitch Ames«««»»»

VHEMT Article – Discussion between 203.38.78.228 and Skyeking

Wikipedia: Civility
(WP:CIV) – (WP:FIVE)

The purpose of this Section is to provide an area for these two Editors (203.38.78.228 and Skyeking) to discuss the VHEMT Article.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


TOPIC: VHEMT Article – Use of italics for “voluntary” (Article Lead) / Dispute Resolution

PREAMBLE:
My style of written communication is not meant to be offensive, and is due to medical reasons (privacy). My intent is to comply with WP:EQ.


CONTINUING DISCUSSION – Skyeking’s response:
(continuation from the VHEMT Article Talk Page – Section: 3.1 RFC: should the word "voluntary" in the lead sentence be in italics?)

The following 203.38.78.228 statements were posted as: 203.38.78.228 (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

203.38.78.228:
“No, I don’t think the word should be italicized. The MoS suggests that italics should be used either to clarify unclear meaning or to emphasize contrast.”

Skyeking:
Yes, you said “Manual of Style”---but you failed to provide an exact (definitive) reference to the specific sentence (MoS) that you are interpreting. Therefore, your statement is unclear (unsupported??). I referenced a specific sentence:
SOURCE LINK

“Italics may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers....”

That sentence states “...draw attention...important word...thrust of the sentence...”


203.38.78.228:
“In this case, the sentence is already clear.....”

Skyeking:
Your premise is based upon your interpretation of ??????(refer to my response above). So, your statement is questionable. Regardless, your context is erroneous as applied to the WP Guideline sentence (emphasis).

The correct context is about “...thrust of the sentence...”---in turn, the italics assist Readers and provide them an ease of understanding (comprehension). Your viewpoint does not assist the Readers (researchers).


203.38.78.228:
“.....and the presence of the word ‘voluntary’ is sufficient emphasis in and of itself.”

Skyeking:
Your statement is flawed. Normal text (presence of a word) does not provide “sufficient emphasis”---a normal text format does not provide any emphasis---whereas, these do; bold-face, italics, quote marks. The mere presence of the word voluntary in a sentence does not assist the Reader’s understanding.

And the word voluntary is---“...draw attention...important word...thrust of the sentence...”


203.38.78.228:
“One would not write ‘the red apple’ because the word ‘red’ itself, as opposed to its absence, is enough.”

Skyeking:
Due to its simplicity (apple / color), your example is a corrupt context. The editing disagreement applies to a complex concept.

Are you arguing that English print style has been misused? If not, what?

With friendly intent I offer you the following (partial list only):

SOURCE LINK

Suggestions for responding

All editors (including anonymous or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment.

• Requests for Comment are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.

• Mediate where possible — identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.

• If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia Policies, or style page.

SUMMARY:

• The current argument of 203.38.78.228 is that the VHEMT Article will be improved if the italics are removed from the word “voluntary”.

• The current argument of Skyeking is that the VHEMT Article will not be improved if the italics are removed from the word “voluntary”.

PENDING:
Hopefully, you agree that we should continue our discussion, with the objective being a further understanding of how to resolve our editing dispute. If you disagree with my suggestion, then please offer your final (closing) statements.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
«««»»»Awaiting response from 203.38.78.228«««»»»

Three revert rule

You are not exempted from WP:3RR, even if you believe that you own the article. Editwarring whilst insisting that others use the talkpage is deeply uncollegiate. Please try to get along better with other editors. bobrayner (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible Edit Summary...that explains the exemption."(WP:3RRNO)

Hence, my "Edit Summary" request (VHEMT Article / May 20, 2011 - 15:38 hrs) was for an Administrator; my request to said Administrator, grant a one-time exemption.

So, Bobrayner's interpretation is erroneous (out-of-context) about said "Edit Summary".

Regarding WP:OWN; my Editorship ("good faith" edits / stewardship)---Bobrayner's highly questionable comments (unsupported accusations) are merely his personal opinion (not proof---whereas, proof is facts with an Administrator's supervision/evaluation). My evaluation of Bobrayner's "ownership" posts; a ploy* to discredit me and intentional baiting.

-*-Definition (personal) of ploy: Devious action(s) calculated to frustrate** a Wikipedia Editor(s).

-**-Definition (personal) of frustrate: To hinder or prevent (consensus); to upset, agitate, or tire.

"Opinion is not proof, and unasked for, is unheeded."---Bobrayner's opinions not asked for by Skyeking---and Skyeking's overall evaluation of the numerous comments by Bobrayner is; "intentional baiting".

Skyeking (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S.

Skyeking had previously provided Bobrayner the correct answer; stewardship---yet, 18-months later and Bobrayner remains unforgiving about Skyeking's FIRST editing error (my FIRST day as an article Editor - Oct. 13, 2009)----whatever Bob, I self-corrected the same-day October 13-14, 2009; FisherQueen (Administrator) had confirmed such-----Bob, enough said.

Skyeking (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Skyeking. You have new messages at Nuujinn's talk page.
Message added 10:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Nuujinn (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Hi Skyeking, I saw that you have been involved in editing this article. I assume that you have it watchlisted, but I thought I'd notify you that I just posted a significant expansion. I think that all of the same links and sourced information in the old version is present in this one, but let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Skyeking, I replied on the talk page of the article in question. I didn't ask you or Mitch for help copyediting because I wasn't sure if you like/were skilled at copyeding. I knew that N and BR both have experience copyediting/reviewing at a high level, and I didn't know anything about you or MA. Feel free to improve my prose anytime though! I didn't get consensus first because I assumed the new version was uncontroversially better than the last (I've done that on a few other articles and never had trouble). I'm especially curious why you think my draft is "extensive and lengthy" with "unnecessary phraseology and original research". I'm willing to work together on this though. My plan had been to get the article to Good Article status and maybe try for Featured after that, does that interest you? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  

UPDATE:
Skyeking answered Mark Arsten on/at 03:06, 17 January 2012 at the VHEMT article's Talk Page - Topic: Wholesale revision.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Voluntary Human Extinction Movement shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Note that this is a friendly warning to help you avoid possible sanction. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
{{admin help}}

Dear Administrators (hopefully two or more),

Please offer Administrator viewpoints (findings) about:

-*- is the “original” version the starting point to “slowly” start editing, or

-*- is the extensive (entire rewrite) “draft” version the starting point.

Administrators, the following is part of my "Dispute Resolution" discussion with Mark Arsten:

Mark Arsten is referring to the VHEMT article Talk Page - Topic: Wholesale reversion.

SKYEKING'S reply to Arsten at the VHEMT article Talk Page:

SOURCE:
Fait accompli
3) Editors who are […] individually making large numbers of similar edits – and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed – are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use […] volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli, or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to […], as well as a few editors making many edits.

Definition of “fait accompli”:

accomplished fact; something that has already happened and is thus unlikely to be reversed, a done deal.

SOURCE: Major Edits

Mark, it appears that you and I are at an “impasse” – so, my suggestion is that we consult with Administrators about the “starting point” for editing the VHEMT article – meaning;

-*- is the “original” version the starting point to “slowly” start editing, or

-*- is your extensive (entire rewrite) “draft” version the starting point.

Mark, are you willing to consult with an Administrator?

If so, are you willing to “jointly” (Mark Arsten / Skyeking) apply for Administrators assistance?

If not, then what do you suggest?

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S.
Mark, your personal interpretation about my medical statements is erroneous. My medical condition is permanent.

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing in your request specifically requires an administrator, as opposed to any other editor, and, since there has been no response in two days, I am removing the adminhelp tag. You can, if you like, place a {{helpme}} tag, to request help more generally. However, I think it would be more helpful to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article. FisherQueen's advice on this is good. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple things

Basically what I'm trying to get across to you on the talk page is that you shouldn't add information to the article that is only mentioned in primary sources. Reliable 3rd-party sources should be used to define and characterize the group, statements from Knight himself should be used sparingly, if at all. Also, since it seems we are getting nowhere with this discussion, maybe we should escalate to the WP:DRN? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Also, I recognize that you prefer to edit slowly, so if you want, I won't make any edits to the page for 72 hours to let you get your ideas together and make the changes you see fit. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

SKYEKING Reply:

Respectfully Mark Arsten (my fellow Editor / all due respect / “good faith”),

WP:LIVE – Using the subject as a self-published source

I disagree with your interpretation of said Policy.

That Policy not prohibit use of “self-published sources”. WP:NPF

S>(Arsten)“...define and characterize the group...”

My interpretation of your statement is that you believe there a formal “the group” — I seriously disagree, protest, and dispute such a belief (refer here) — correctly recognized (in-context), there is a worldwide “informal network of people” who may or may not be aware of the name VHEMT (appellative) assigned to The Movement (environmental). (refer here) and (refer here)

“Being VHEMT is a state of mind. VHEMT not an organization, so no membership[...]. Instead, we are millions of individuals [worldwide], each doing what we feel is best.”

My course of reasoning (evaluation) concluded that your premise for your “draft” is erroneous; because you belief in the existence of a formal “the group” (out-of-context) — such a belief is in direct contradiction to Les U. Knight’s statements (VHEMT website). Of course, respectfully, you are entitled to your belief — you and I can only “agree to disagree”.

Currently, and with your help (and others), I have volunteered to undertake the long-term (months) process of reviewing line-by-line (each and every word WP:HOW Major Edits: “single word” — inclusive of in-line cites) to ensure “in-context” and “accurate” WP:FIVE

“That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person. WP:FIVE

S>(Arsten)“...we are getting nowhere with this discussion, maybe we should escalate to the WP:DRN?”

I am unclear about your statement. Please clarify.

S>(Arsten)“...you [Skyeking] prefer to edit slowly [...] I won't make any edits to the page for 72-hours to let you get your ideas together and make the changes you see fit.”

I am unclear about your statement. Please clarify.

Once again, I have volunteered to undertake the long-term (months) process of reviewing your “draft” — (in-context; as applicable to WP:FIVE --- not, Good Article submission; in my opinion such a submission is months away).

Mark, I look forward to collaborating with you.

Skyeking (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've got a few different articles I'm working on at the moment, so I probably won't be able to give this article much attention for the time being. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

VHEMT website ownership?

DISPUTE RESOLUTION (Discussion) – Initiated by Skyeking

Respectfully Mitch Ames (my fellow editor, all due respect, “good faith”),

I am writing as best as my medical limitations allow, and per your request, posting at the Article Talk Page vs. my User Talk Page.
As you (others) well know, my writing style (format) is due to my medical condition.

SOURCE: Major edits (refer here)

“Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is major (not minor), even if the edit is a single word.”

DISPUTED EDIT LOCATION: Mitch Ames / Skyeking (refer here)

OVERVIEW (by Skyeking, his understanding):

Mitch Ames (opinion):

Of the opinion that “the group” owns said website and its information is the group writing (speaking).

Skyeking (opinion):

Of the opinion that “Les U. Knight” (living person) solely owns said website and its information is Knight’s “personal” expression (presentation) of his personal ideology about VHEMT concepts.

As such, all information posted at said website should be attributed solely to Knight himself. WP:VERIFY (living person) / WP:NPF / WP:BURDEN /

SKYEKING Argument:

Mitch,
I question, your third-person argument and your VHEMT.org argument (group):

“The GROUP, not Knight, estimates "millions...". The ref is VHEMT.org, not Knight's personal page (eg, it refers to Knight in the 3rd person, not the 1st person.” (Mitch Ames / refer here)

The dichotomy between VHEMT.org (merely a URL) and the VHEMT website information is explained by Knight’s statement:

"The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is not an organization [group], so no membership..." (refer here)

— meaning, in actuality, there not any organization (of any type) to join – hence, no “members” (misnomer) ---– in my opinion, Knight’s conceptual view is a worldwide “informal network of people” (refer here).

Yes, Knight sometimes writes in the third-person because his audience is worldwide (Internet). Merely writing in the third-person doesn’t forfeit “first-person” – nor imply there is “a group” writing. And the majority of the website is written in first-person. (refer here- about third-person)

Essentially, in my opinion, there not any “group” (unidentified, no first/last names) – instead, the VHEMT website is merely Knight’s “personal” expression (presentation) of his personal ideology about VHEMT concepts --- so, reference cites (source = VHEMT website) in the Article should be attributed solely to Knight himself. WP:VERIFY (living person) / WP:NPF / WP:BURDEN

Does Knight publicly state that his website is written (owned) by someone else (group)?
Mitch, do you have reliable (verifiable) sources that definitively state such?

Once again, my discussion is "with all due respect" to yourself (others).
Are we at an impasse?
Skyeking (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2012 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Editor Defense:

• Unaware of WP:NLT
• Skyeking not post “threat” (explanation provided)

First, I accept responsibility for my legal defense post (refer here).

Second, I apologize to my fellow Editors if I have upset them, such was not my intent.

Third, I would never, repeat never, “threaten” lawsuit against Wikimedia or my fellow Editors.

Fourth, the legal objective of my post was to create my public record “Declaration of Innocence” (legal evidence; Defendant: Skyeking) — in the event that Les U. Knight (Plaintiff: Les U. Knight) were to file lawsuit against me (Skyeking) – (refer here)

To protect myself (Skyeking) from being named in a lawsuit, or at the very least have legal evidence — I had to post such a legal defense because of the publicly posted complete overwrite (Major Edit) of the VHEMT Article (refer here – original) and (refer here – complete overwrite). Thereby, changing the “legal liability” (refer here) status of said Article.

Plaintiff: Les U. Knight

Defendant: Skyeking

My public post is a legal defense in the event of lawsuit against me (Skyeking).
And said public post was upon the advice of my legal advisors.

Fifth, regarding GA Review, I not aware that my post was a major violation of Policy/Guideline – I apologize, and will not do such again.

Sixth, some Editors interpret that I “own” said Article – I beg to differ WP:OAS — my permanent medical condition only allows me to edit one Article. So, I chose the VHEMT Article because it had been abandoned and vandalized (controversial / living person = most legal risk; Defendant: Skyeking / Plaintiff: Les U. Knight). My intent was/is to help improve Wikipedia – not to own an Article.

Many times I have thanked my fellow Editors for their patience and understanding about my medical condition. Yes, I am different from others, but truly I am trying to collaborate with my fellow Editors, and comply with Wikipedia Policies/Guidelines.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to request reinstatement of my full-editing privileges.Skyeking (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Instead of a simple retraction of the legal threat, you posted a long legalese diatribe indicating that you're unable to participate in building an encyclopedia constructively. To prevent you from causing more chilling effect, I've revoked your ability to edit this page. Max Semenik (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2012 (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.

• If you wish to make further unblock requests, please contact arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

This is a note to let the main editors of Voluntary Human Extinction Movement know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 24, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 24, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of mankind. VHEMT supports human extinction primarily because it would prevent environmental degradation. The group states that a decrease in the human population would prevent a significant amount of man-made human suffering. The extinctions of non-human species and the scarcity of resources required by humans are frequently cited by the group as evidence of the harm caused by human overpopulation. VHEMT was founded in 1991 by Les U. Knight, an activist who became involved in the environmental movement in the 1970s and thereafter concluded that human extinction was the best solution to the problems facing the Earth's biosphere and humanity. Knight publishes the group's newsletter and serves as its spokesperson. Although the group is promoted by a website and represented at some environmental events, it relies heavily on coverage from outside media to spread its message. Many commentators view its platform as unacceptably extreme, though other writers have applauded VHEMT's perspective. In response to VHEMT, some journalists and academics have argued that humans can develop sustainable lifestyles or can reduce their population to sustainable levels. Others maintain that, whatever the merits of the idea, because of the human reproductive drive mankind will never voluntarily seek extinction. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom unblock appeal

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your appeal and has declined to unblock at this time.

You may re-apply to have your ban reviewed again in six-months' time. There is no automatic entitlement to an unban, however, so you will need to provide us with good reasons why we should do so. Additionally, we would expect to see evidence of insight into the conduct that caused the problems in the first place as well as commitment to changed and well-controlled behaviour.

For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

FAR for Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

I have nominated Voluntary Human Extinction Movement for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 03:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)