User talk:Slofstra

Consensus is nonsensus

Long live dissent and free speech. Consensus just means that the majority view crowds out the minority. The sooner wikipedia dies the better. Wikipedia needs competition. Imagine a world where all information comes from one source. Slofstra (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggested guidelines for writing articles on religious groups

I have fairly strong ideas about how articles on religious groups should be written. I really owe a lot to User:Eddie Tor who convinced me that such articles should be brief, avoid issues about doctrine, and use plain description.

For any given topic, pro- writers will want to cast the group in as favourable light as possible. Con- writers will want to show the negative aspects of membership in the group, and the negative effects of the group and society in the world. Following wiki guidelines helps to prevent topics from becoming pro- and con- battlegrounds. I'd like to summarize those guidelines I've found to be especially pertinent and useful.

First, any useful, noncontroversial statements such as 'the sky is blue' to which pro- and con- observers agree, and which are not obvious to the general reader, should be allowed without citations. This is because for many groups, no good secondary sources exist and basic information is always of use to the interested. An example might be to describe the way in which baptism is carried out.

But anything else should be cited. That means adding an in-line reference for each line being written, so that the fact is numbered, and a footnote made in the reference section. IMO, if it's not cited and it's in any way controversial you should not add the point at all. The argument is often made, that exceptions should be made for beginners. I think that beginners should work like this from day one, and thus spared embarrassment and editor slams. (Which is how I learned.)

When you cite, use only 'secondary sources' such as encyclopedias, articles in scholary journals which have been peer reviewed, or responsible publishing houses. This is very important because only these sources know how to cross check information, avoid libelous issues, and generally provide a WP:NPOV.

Do not use any of the following, which wikipedia disallows: Self-published sources, especially web sites either pro- or con-. See also WP:SPS. Newspaper articles, photos, diaries, journals, and so on. These are primary sources, and writing which uses such sources is original research which violates WP:NOR. But see (*).

There is a situation where I believe newspaper articles can be used. This is the case of a survey newspaper or magazine article which is wide in scope and has performed background research. Newspaper articles on specific events should not be used, especially historical events.

External links. Criteria for including external links can be much more relaxed than for content of the article itself. Web information which cannot be cited may form a useful link, from the wiki policy to include "sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Links and references should be directly pertinent to the article. But it's useful to review wp:External links if in doubt about a particular link. Also, where living persons are concerned, the external link must be held to a higher standard. See wp:BLP. Based on how I read wiki policies, external sites which contain derogatory, unsourced information about living persons should not be linked from a Wikipedia article. Slofstra (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Primary sources. I am unsure about how primary sources should be used in articles on religious groups. Strictly speaking the use of primary sources constitutes original research, and is not allowed. But a primary source can be useful in citing a non-controversial point. There is a fine line here, IMO. Slofstra (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Slofstra (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments invited. Especially if you think I've misinterpreted or misrepresented any wiki policies, please let me know.

Archive of initial discussion with User:Eddie Tor.

[1]

Semi protecting the article

Thank you for watching the Christian Conventions article. It is still being edited by newer editors without regard to WP:NPOV or WP:RELY (I don't know that privately-run websites can really be deemed reliable resources). Is it possible to semi-protect it like you suggested? I think it should be reverted to your last edit and then any non-minor changes should be discussed on the talk page first. Donama (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Cooneyites

Ahh, friends at last. I figured I would take this off the discussion page, and make it a little more personal. First, let me wish you and yours a Happy New Year! Second Slofstra, as I stated earlier, I admit I am an inclusionist (yes a made up word), which makes for some interesting discussions here at Wikipedia. But with regards to the Cooneyites I do believe they should be referenced in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is developing into a encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, its purpose is to help individuals find information and facts, that are verifiable and reliable, on subjects such as; locations – people – music – books –etc –etc. What constitutes notable and significant is extremely WP:POV as this discussion shows. What is notable for me is not necessarily considered notable by another. However, should we be prevented from providing that information because some think that it is not significant enough? Is not the basic concept and mandate of Wikipedia to provide information? I would rather error on the side of providing information, since we are not limited by how much paper we use, than to discard knowledge because some may think the sources provided are insignificant. Hope this helps for you to know where I come from. And by the way, in reviewing you edit history, very nice work on several articles. You are a definite asset to Wikipedia. Happy editing. Shoessss |  Chat  00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the validation. Something everyone can always use. I try not to be too vested in the outcome of whatever I advocate. My concern is really that we reach for WP:V and I think merged with a link is a really good solution. I could see that Cooneyites and also William Irvine were starting to repeat what is in Christian Conventions but pushed in a slightly different direction. Still way too much SPS in this area, but I think I will give it a rest once this is all over and work in some other areas. Local churches looks like it could use some work.

:-). Shoessss |  Chat  01:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

References

I agree completely that there need to be references for every article. New users should have that spelled out to them much more comprehensively than is currently the case - perhaps we need a notice in the edit page to editors that references are not an option, but a necessity. This, however, isn't the case yet.

I also feel that there is no harm to the project to have short (even one line) articles on verifiable topics, as these can easily be built on, and are often an entry point for those who don't know that they can start an article (or aren't confident doing so). I meet a lot of these people in real life.

So it annoys me when these are deleted or nominated for lack of references, when it would take only a short period of time to find some and incorporate them. No-one would say that references can't be found for banquets or bilge keels, but I've pulled both from WP:PRODSUM recently. I don't think that these positions are in any way contradictory. In any case, the notice regards the much more serious issues that have little do with lack of references and much more to do with the way WP:NPOV is interpreted and (not) enforced, which in my view is a much much more serious issue for this encyclopedia. Cheers. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you look at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal. It's an interesting debate, one I hold strong opinions on (but don't have the time right now to participate properly). Cheers. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My comments on Verifiability

Thanks for your note at my talk page.

At the moment I'm in two minds about the issues raised. I write mainly in issues related to East Asia, including East Asian history. This can be a tendentious area due to rival nationalisms. I don't have access to a lot of reference materials. Due to my current situation I'm "living light" (no way to keep large quantities of books with me, no access to good libraries).

I guess I tend towards looser guidelines because that's how it's been until recently, and that's why there is so much stuff on Wikipedia. People sitting down writing articles or adding facts to articles that they know something about. If every writer of every article was expected to sit down with academic sources and write a research paper, Wikipedia would shrink to a fifth (my estimate, changes from day to day) of its current size. You would also end up weeding out 80% (my estimate again :) ) of the interesting information on Wikipedia that is found nowhere else.

The fact that the Macanese pataca is called 葡币 (Portuguese money) is interesting local information. It's something I can personally vouch for. But it's not easy to find an academic source. Maybe it's in a dictionary somewhere, but the likelihood of that is low because Chinese dictionaries are usually compiled from the perspective of standard Mandarin based in Beijing -- there is a very definite bias in official sources (my own Original Research). Anyway, I eventually found a note at Baidu asking why the Macanese currency is called 葡币, and someone's answer. All in Chinese, of course, so not really in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, but better than a "fact" tag.

And it's my opinion that a lot of stuff on Wikipedia is this kind of information. Maddeningly disorganised and ad hoc, at times, but something that is not likely to appear in an academic research paper.

Relying on published sources has its own limitations. Take Mongolia, where I'm now living, for instance. I've seen in one Internet source on Mongolia (it may have been the Economist or the BBC, I'm sorry, I can't remember where it was) that "there are more Mongolians living in Inner Mongolia (China) than are living in the independent state of Mongolia". Totally factual, totally innocuous, right? Wrong! This is the kind of information that is favoured greatly by Chinese nationalists in proving that Inner Mongolia (part of China) has greater claim to the mantle of the Mongols than the nation of Mongolia does. It is an extremely tendentious fact that must be seen against something like 80 years of Chinese efforts to reclaim Outer Mongolia as part of China. As I said, you can find this "fact" in all kinds of sources, but it's not so easy to tease out the meaning of the "fact" (and the reason for stating it) from any sources that I've seen.

Similarly, there is great hatred (yes, hatred) of the Chinese in Mongolia. I've only ever found one place on the Internet where someone has stated this fact, and it was in a comment on a blog. So for lack of verifiable sources, one of the most palpable and salient factors of life in modern-day Mongolia can't be mentioned on Wikipedia. (Needless to say, more subtle factors such as the delicate mix of feelings that Outer Mongolians have for the Inner Mongolians -- Mongolians but not Mongolians because they are also Chinese -- and vice versa, are totally out of bounds.)

Another problem is the overwhelming use of cited sources to back up one particular point of view. The article on Bushido is a case in point. The page is under the total megalomanical control of a person claiming to come from a Japanese samurai family. This person cites screeds of sources, but refuses to countenance any approaches to the issue of Bushido other than his own. The guy is a POV warrior, but a POV warrior with impeccable verifiability of sources.

That is why I'm sceptical of this reliance on published sources as the only way to write Wikipedia articles. One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it isn't the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. It isn't just a place where people come in and write "research papers".

However, given that Wikipedia has decided to adopt verifiability as a core policy -- and it seems to me that the emphasis on this core policy has got stronger and stronger over the past year or two -- I think it should do so properly. At the moment everyone and anyone who feels that they disagree with a statement, or feels that a statement sounds like someone's personal experience and not an utterance of the Delphic oracle, can come along and put a "fact" tag against a fact, or a "need for citations" tag on an entire article. At worst they can delete a fact they don't like or disagree with. The "fact" tag is just one more weapon in the arsenal of those who want to change articles in a way they want to. There are already too many vandals going round randomly deleting material that they feel like deleting. This only makes it worse. (It's not always vandals who do this. For instance, someone put a "fact" tag against the name "Double Fifth" at the article on the Dragon Boat Festival. Why? Because they'd never heard of the name. They didn't even bother to do a Google search to see if the name "Double Fifth" had any currency. I did a Google search, found quite a lot of hits for that particular name, and deleted the "fact" tag. But this is typical of many cases in which the "fact" tag is used.)

Previously it was encouraged to translate Wiki articles from other languages. I did that with the article on Motoori Norinaga -- translated most of the Japanese article and put it in the English article. Now someone has come along and put a "citations needed" tag on the article. The person who did so was a respectable editor and was acting in good faith and with justification. According to Wikipedia guidelines, much of the current article on Motoori Norinaga should be scrapped. I'm not aware that Wikipedia articles in other languages are allowed as "sources". But is that really what we should be doing? Should we be scrapping everything, including useful information that can't be found anywhere else, because of a narrow insistence on citing sources? Is this really a way to enrich the sum of human knowledge?

So the point of my diatribe was: You can have it one way or another. Either you let people cite material from less-than-academic sources, including personal knowledge or experience, and including Wikipedia articles in other languages. Or you go through and scrap the lot. Wikipedia wants to have its cake and eat it, too. It wants to have all that information up on the web, but it doesn't want to ruthlessly ensure that its core policy of "verifiability" is adhered to. As a result of this wishy-washy attitude, the forces of chaos are unleashed as tag-happy editors go through and do what they want on the basis of "policy".

I think that is what I wanted to say. It's not very rigorous (I'm not a policy maker), but it embodies my feelings about this policy.

Oh, and I still believe that POV-pushers and vandals are much bigger threats to Wikipedia than the verifiability thing. One example: at the article on kumquat, some vandal came in and deleted the entire introductory paragraph. When a respectable editor fixed it up, they failed to notice that the vandalism wasn't just a couple of words, it was an entire paragraph. So the fixed up version left out a whole paragraph of information that someone in the past had painstakingly written. I've seen this happen many times. (One was at the article on Red panda. Another was a long time ago at Yangtze river. Vandals destroyed information, which failed to be fixed properly.)

Bathrobe (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your POV. I'm not sure of the solution; I've added some comments at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Policy_and_practice_at_odds on this subject. I chanced across your comments there and thought they were interesting, as my POV has been totally opposite to yours! I've been working on articles within Restorationist and there have been some negative POV editors. I use WP:V to keep them at bay, although I never challenge something I know is true. If I am suspicious I will still challenge because I think the writer should take the onus to cite. 90% of the various articles in this area are not cited or referenced; there are few sources. I think one thing everyone can agree on is that practice and policies are at odds. When I filed for an AFD on an article which I thought nonsense, I found that the more experienced editors thought my approach too rigid, yet I was just following policies as they were written. So there is a gap between policy and practice. Perhaps the articles need an integrity ranking scheme based on some objective criteria. This would be peer assessment, and you would apply to move up the ladder. As you move up the ladder the requirements for sourcing become stiffer. Slofstra (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally on a personal note, Bathrobe, I am Canadian, but my daughter-in-law is a Chinese national from ChangChun. We will probably travel to China in the first year without Olympics to meet her parents, i.e. 2009. I have told her that I really want to make a side-trip to Mongolia; she thinks I must be joking. It's just a fancy I have always had - but do you think it would be worth the effort? Slofstra (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Most Chinese are not particularly keen on Mongolia. They regard it as totally primitive and backward (well, it is compared to China, I guess) , and many are also still angry that the Russians took away THEIR territory.

But Mongolia is popular among foreign tourists, who aren't weighed down with that kind of attitudinal baggage. So of course a trip to Mongolia is worth it! Ulaanbaatar is nothing out of the ordinary, something like a regional Chinese city, but less developed -- although it definitely has a different feeling from China. The "countryside", as they call it here, is nice to visit. There is the Gobi desert, there are lakes, etc. Foreigners love to stay in gers (yurts), which are still common in Mongolia. (Thanks to "progress", they've largely disappeared from most parts of Inner Mongolia -- but "progress" for the Chinese means that everyone gets to live in a "modern" blocky brick building.)

Still if you're going to China, there are a thousand other places to visit. I wonder if you'll have time to run off to Mongolia for a week!

Bathrobe (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never actually heard of Restorationism before. My idea of Restoration was always the literature of the English Restoration. And when I went to the Restoration disambiguation page I found it something of a mess. I've tried to rationalise it a bit, not necessarily with total success.

As for the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability, well, as I said, I'm in two minds. Your chosen field is obviously one which will attract all kinds of people who think they "know" and will insert commentary that reflects nothing more than their personal opinions. I've done quite a bit of work on the page Zhonghua minzu, which is similarly subject to heavy influence by people who think they "know". The page started out as an attack on Zhonghua minzu as a "pseudo-nationality" (written by a Japanese), and was then turned into a very positive article by people of Chinese ethnicity (one of whom was an American Chinese who proudly claimed that he belonged to the Zhonghua minzu). Needless to say, the new slant pretty much reflected the ideological line of the supporters of the concept, the greatest supporter being, of course, the Chinese government. There's not a lot around on the ideology, and even if you rounded everything up and tried to draw conclusions you'd be guilty of Original Research (another policy that's bandied around a lot, and often wrongly, in my opinion). All I've been able to do is gently push the article away from a completely apologist line. Unfortunately it's not possible to write a true article on the concept because it's part of the bedrock of Chinese nationalism. Since you will find very few Han Chinese who don't subscribe to the concept of restoring their nation to greatness, you'll find very few people opposed to the concept. (Ethnic minorities may have divergent views -- I've spoken to an Inner Mongolian who told me that people who know anything about history in Inner Mongolia find the words "Zhonghua minzu" extremely objectionable -- naturally no published sources. Articles on China seem to be dominated by Han Chinese who like to trivialise opposing views by saying they are held by "individuals".) Anyway, enough of this. I'm sure you have plenty of experience of this at Restorationism!

Bathrobe (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Try the last word you used; I've turned it into a link. I'm going to look at Zhonghua minzu, it sounds interesting, and I'd also like to see how ideological wiki warfare plays out on a different front than mine. Slofstra (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Zhonghua minzu is pretty quiet compared with what you have to deal with! The article on China and China proper have had similar manifestations of the same syndrome (Chinese nationalism). By the way, User:Yaan has supplied me with a source for Mongolian nationalism in all its complexity. All I have to do now is fork out $115!

Bathrobe (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding some important issues on WiKi

Hi Slofstra, thanks for leaving a personal note on my talk page and for your sincere concern.

I seems to me that you are quite active on Wiki and knows about it more than me. I have some of the concerns which I would like to discuss with you which in turn could be very useful for other editors of "Christian type".

1. On Apr 6/08 (yesterday), I attended the "convention" at Hunter, rural North Dakota and I see that it is really very hard to insert citation/links/ref/external sources in the article "Christian Conventions" and "others" from unbiased third party people. As there is not much third party reference available (un-judged). So what should we do, the similar problems I face with articles such as on Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and Local churches. These Christian groups are strictly in themselves yet wide open for the public. Anyone can go to their meetings and can see for themselves the enjoyment of living God, the true Christians should have. However there is only criticism for "these little flocks" from the outer denominations and dissenting brothers. So regarding to third party notability on wiki, I am concerned as most of these third party links are blind and strongly biased in nature. (you can read my concerns/requests to the wiki editors on Talk:Watchman Nee).

There is a healthy, ongoing debate on what should and should not be included as wiki expands into new territory. From submitting an AFD for an article I thought of no consequence, I learned that consensus view is considerably more relaxed than the standards wiki supposedly follows. If you look at the first guideline I suggested for the types of articles you and I work on, you should feel quite comfortable adding material that is non-controversial and factual without citation - the example I provide is how baptism is carried out.

A much more tricky area is to stay NPOV, for which I have had my knuckles rapped numerous times, so welcome to the club. But I like to think of it this way - wiki is no place to reach converts, but if they are interested in Local churches already, they can use wiki to find some plain factual information. So the irony is that you cannot really say much about what you know and believe most deeply. Because other people do not, and so it reflects a Point of View. At the same time you can use the same principle to keep out biased anti- material from the article. But never delete something you know is true. If you are unsure, and it's not verified, you should delete it.

2. There is no active discussion going on to delete An Autobiography of a Person in the Spirit, anyways thanks.

Okay - that's good.

3. Still for the people (Christian and non-christians alike) there should be some references (internal or from friends) on the article "Christian Conventions". I'm having much help from this article to re-arrange, edit, add, and re-write the section in article "Local churches". Please feel burdened and at the same time free to improve it and others as well. Please write/add on my talk page if you have some other issues to discuss on Christian articles. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your English is good but not quite there in terms of colloquial expression which can't really be taught and comes with experience. So your work will need some editing along that line. Just keep at it, you've got a really great attitude. Unlike Local churches there is no collateral literature for writers to draw on regarding the friends. I'm not happy about the quality of the Christian Conventions article and in this case, much needs to be trimmed, there are probably a few citations that can be added, but there are only one or two verifiable sources on the subject. There's a great deal of anti- material which cannot be cited. There's also a huge amount of letters, diaries and so on which could be used if someone was ambitious enough to quote it and cite it properly. I'm not - I've decided to play doorkeeper on this one because it needs to be done.

Thanks a lot brother. Amen. Yesterday I read the whole discussion of "Br. Tor and you" and the entire subject discussed. Very nice. I just wanted to leave you a note that you can visit the page Local churches and can see the little changes I have made. There is more to be done but I'll be researching the "references" as well before putting anything further on the subject. Today I just added the "Hymnal" and "small portion of meeting life" ...

Regarding Convention: There are few "words and things" which you can edit or change (or I'll do that if no one cares enough) in the article Christian Conventions which reflects "organization", "man made/controlled system", and "smell of man's vain thoughts and denominations". (There are such dung in Local churches too but that I will edit with valid references once when I finish up my homework and research.) So I just wanted to request you that please give the article a fresh look (when you have time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by HopeChrist (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Praise the Lord brother: I have a question for you regarding the theological stand (of "The Truth") regarding the "deity of Christ". Does this movement believe that "Jesus" is (and was) God? I read the pages by brother Philip and there I can clearly see that Jesus is God and Jesus was God and that He is God the Son but also God incarnate. But however, here in North Dakota, during this last month convention, one of the preacher spoke that "Jesus was only a good man" (which is dead wrong and hurting to hear); and when I found that later from my notes (taken during the Convention), I went and asked some of the brothers and sisters this question. It seems to me that here in the North Dakota (or at-least in my area), this group doesn't believe in the deity of Christ! Please reply soon; I am very sad and distressed by this. But please do reply in honesty and truth. Jesus is the Lord and the very triune God. (I have also emailed brother Philip.) In Christ. HopeChrist (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into that. It seems to me that there are already some issues being put there (I mean on the The Truth Meeting Board). However, your reply was helpful and thanks again. I am now confirmed on the fact of the divinity of Christ by both br Philip and you. HopeChrist (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WINGS reference on Christian Conventions

Why did you remove this reference? Just curious. Do agree with most of your edits. Slofstra (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Slofstra, I can't really remember, but I did make a comment in the edit summary which I can quote here: "remove wings link as it is not actually about this article (not to mention non-NPOV -- see WP:NPOV) -- arguments on talk page pls)". Is it okay by you? Donama (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The WINGS site is specifically about and for the members of 'Christian Conventions'. Many of the site authors have an anti- agenda but they have tried to keep this particular site ideologically neutral and focussed on the issue of child sexual abuse. There have been a number of CSA incidents involving the 'Christian Conventions' clergy and also elsewhere within the group, not systemically, and probably no more than occurs in other denominations or the population in general. But with this group, the problem is compounded by the local/ decentralized nature of the membership and no formal church communication, which means that parents with young children are more vulnerable because of a lack of accurate information on the incidents that have occurred. So I personally feel the site is beneficial, informative and timely and also relevant to the article. The link and the WINGS site could very well save a child from a CSA attack which is why I think it should be there. Slofstra (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Slofstra, I completely see your point here, but Wikipedia isn't intended as a place to warn vulnerable people about sexual predators. Generic support/information links, yes, but this one really smacks of a non-neutral point of view, whatever one's personal views are. I think there's almost certain to be sexual abuse happening in any organisation/situation where kids are alone with adults who are blindly trusted so I certainly don't dispute that and definitely have no interest in defending any religious organisation against the charge... But it's still against WP's WP:NPOV guideline to just presume it. And I think it's unencyclopaedic too. The whole article completely lacks verifiability as it is. Btw I also agree with all you're saying about the WINGS website. It looks to be pretty dry and reasonable, no qualm there, but that still doesn't mean it's relevant. That said, I don't want to be dogmatic. Add the link back if you still feel it should go there after reading this :) Donama (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed church article rename

Hi, I'm contacting you because you were involved in early discussions on the Wikipedia article name for the topic currently at Christian Conventions. It has been proposed to rename to Two by Twos. Please join in the discussion if you have an opinion on this at Talk:Christian Conventions#Requested move. Cheers Donama (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding personal attacks

You said on the Talk:Two by Twos page that you haven't made any personal attacks. Honestly, I do not believe any rational outsider would come to the same conclusion. This statement:

"Anyway, winklevi, I am wondering if it is you that should go elsewhere, and come back when you're not so upset and can be more rational.Slofstra (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)",

in which you say that Winklevi is not rational, is clearly in violation of our talk page guidelines regarding personal attacks, and also, honestly, does not in any way actually adhere to talk page guidelines. We are supposed to use article talk pages to comment on content, not others, and, frankly, this comment contains nothing that could remotely be interpreted as anything but an aspersion on others. Also, this later comment,

"Well, sorry, I can't see it, and you are unwilling to provide examples. You also conveniently lump my comments and Todd's comments together, but I've personally never made any negative comment about any editor that I can see. I have made a number of positive comments about astynax's work and I think minor edits by other editors have also helped with the tone. Not sure why you've got your shorts in a knot.Slofstra (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC),",

seems to not only indicate that perhaps you are not the best judge of what is and is not acceptable, as you clearly do not see your own previous completely irrelevant comment only two comments above on that page, but also engage in yet further violations of talk page guidelines, with the rather clearly insulting comment that winklevi has got his shorts in a knot.

So in general, I guess I have to leave this as a clear warning regarding the appropriate use of article talk pages. Please read WP:TPG and WP:NPA. Should you continue to engage in such misuse of article talk pages, it will be appropriate, and indeed in full accord with wikipedia policies and guidelines, to seek disciplinary sanctions. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, accept your judgement, John. If winklevi was offended by me saying he had "his shorts in a knot", then I do apologize. The other one was quite wicked also, and I apologize again. And actually not wanting to offend, I conclude I should stay off wiki for a while as I doubt I'll be able to curb my passion to the extent requested.Slofstra (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, simply making personal attacks is not in and of itself necessarily cause to abandon content. It just means you should make a bit more of an effort to limit comments to those which directly relate to the article itself. I say this as someone who has a rather significant history of making significantly insulting and condescending statements myself, which I have at times been warned about. The comment above was in no way necessarily meant to be anything like a "final warning" either, although, admittedly, I notice after the fact it might be seen as being such. But, as someone who has violated WP:NPA more than once myself, I do acknowledge we are all better off in refraining from personal comments on others on article talk pages, even if I personally still fail to adhere to that standard myself. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the encouragement, but I really find wikipedia stifling. I feel much more comfortable contributing on Discussion Forums; here's a sample - http://professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=20459 Slofstra (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)