User talk:Silverback

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Silverback/archive1 testing archiving

Contents 1 "Supporters" argue this 2 discussion moved 3 justification for war 4 draft 5 Survey 6 Conscription series 7 Modernization theory: I urge you to cite your sources 8 PNAC 9 Lancet Study (Iraq excess deaths) 10 Current Events 11 NPOV 12 Do you know any exceptions? 13 my compliments 14 Article Licensing 15 "Dry drunk" 16 Anti-democracy forces and the U.S. 17 From ViP 18 Iraq occupation 19 wrt most skeptics 20 Neoconservatism 21 Atkins 22 Edit summary 23 Bombing of Dresden in World War II 24 Strauss 25 VfD 26 Politically motivated VfD on your part 27 Apparent versus Published 28 Children in the IPC 29 Hi Silverback 30 Invasion or liberation? 31 Re: Don't abuse the minor edit box. 32 Iraqi insurgency page move 33 "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" 34 List of sources referring to the Taiwan Strait islands as Taiwan 35 Etiquette in the Anarchism article 36 Global warming 37 donkey punch category 38 Medicine 39 re: 172 40 Use and Abuse 41 Classical definition of republic 42 Arbitration Committee case opening 43 Seattle 44 Dividend tax 45 Re: comment on Talk:FOX News 46 Zen-master 47 How do you spin this sort of thing? 48 Sockpuppets 49 User:KingofAllPaperboys 50 Depleted Uranium 51 hey 52 nicely put 53 Capitalism 54 Redirects 55 Global warming 56 "the commitment stuff is nothing new at all" 57 page move 58 Left Anarchism 59 libertarianism 60 Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda 61 You're back 62 Conspiring 63 Working poor 64 FARC archive page 65 Castro 66 Re: Bad Habits 67 Intelligent Design, Comments from A ghost 68 RfC 69 Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda → Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory - name change vote 70 Wikipedia cliques 70.1 FeloniousMonk 71 Ted Kennedy 72 Re: Ted Kennedy 73 Kennedy Poll 74 Insults, etc. 75 Intelligent design 76 Dominionism 77 Lancet 78 Talk Pages 79 Archives 80 erasing a 3RR notice?? 81 Truly Amazed 82 Consensus 83 Sleepnomore 84 talkheader 85 Katrina edits 86 RE: Whoops, on the Shiavo featured article vote. 87 Re: including links to external pages 88 Dispute advice needed 89 User Page 90 your intransigence on Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda 91 iraq invasion edits 92 more conduct issues 93 Neoconservatism in the United States 94 Please stop deleting sections wholesale 94.1 In other peoples' words... 95 World view quiz 96 VfU 97 King Bush 98 VfU again 99 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback 100 Block 101 Admin needed to delete the CfD/user/Silverback per the 48 hour rule 102 Arbitration 103 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor 104 Parole discussion about W.M. Connolley 105 Arbitration accepted 106 Criticisms of communism 107 RFC... 108 FireFox RFA 109 PRueda29 RFA 110 RfC and RfA 111 Your allegations against myself 112 Communism issue 113 your arbcom case 114 CfD 115 Admins and IAR 116 Psy guy's RfA 117 Global Warming 118 Karmafist 119 Thank you 120 List of dictators 121 Case closed 122 Economic fascism 123 User Bill of Rights 124 I have replied 125 Pursuit of truth 125.1 the above unsigned by Sunnan] 126 Arbcom candidate userbox 127 Homeschooling project 128 Petition on Bullying in Wikipedia 129 Information for You 130 Seeking Help 131 1RR/7 132 Block for parole violation 133 Please watch Nightline tonight, Feb. 15 134 Pages up for deletion 135 Come join the fun! 136 ContiE's Administrator Abuse 137 Rio Grande Foundation 138 TfD nomination of Template:Dominionism 139 Dominionism movement 140 Cuba 141 RfC 142 List of dictators 143 Talk page box for NOR 144 Template:Dominionism

[edit] "Supporters" argue this

You said "supporters" argue this, but I've never heard this point claimed. The argument that conscription is fascism might be an interesting one, but the fact is nations do conscript and it is not considered fascist or out of the ordinary at all, whether it should or not. Furthermore, the fact that women and children were being used in factories was never used by anyone to my knowledge as a justification for killing them. There have been arguments that foreign nations' economies are "fair game" because they support the war industry, but that's the closest one can come. In any case, Japan's decisions in this regard do not reflect on the legitimacy of killing civilians. VV 08:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User talk is yes inelegant. It is true that a state's act of conscription confers non-civilian status on someone, but that's not really the same thing. It is the fact that they are fighting and shooting at their enemy that makes them soldiers. A child forced to work in a factory doesn't count. Such are the laws of war, however illogical you may think they are. VV 08:52, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether I "accept things the way they are". It's a matter of whether the article should reflect what the actual arguments being made are or just a few people's theories. VV 04:22, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, the point I'm trying to make is that the paragraph you wrote said that "supporters" "argue" something that in fact is not an argument often made. Note in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that "original research" is not one of things this encyclopedia is. We are supposed to summarize human knowledge, not expand it. JamesMLane phrased this general idea I think well in his response to you at the article. VV 06:38, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:No original research. VV 06:42, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] discussion moved

Hi Silverback -- User:Graft removed our discussion from the talk page. I guess s/he's right that it didn't belong there according to official policy. I've retrieved it from the page history and put it here. Since it won't be publicly visible, we might as well continue by email, which is perhaps a bit more convenient. My email is fpahl@web.de.

This long and detailed article in the New York Times is very relevant to what you still seem to regard as an intelligence failure. (It requires registration, unfortunately, but I can send it to you as a zip archive if you're interested.) What it describes isn't an intelligence failure. Blatant manipulation of the truth to justify aggression comes closer. (See also my last posts in the discussion (marked "22:07, 6 Oct 2004")) Fpahl 00:22, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Silverback - your discussion was related to the topic, but it was not a discussion directed at improving the page. It's very easy for us to get into undirected discussions about the subjects we are writing about, but that's not the purpose of Wikipedia, and having those sort of discussions on talk pages takes away from the task of working on pages. I don't mean to demean or stop your discussion, which I think is important to have. However, as Fpahl suggests above, User_talk pages or email are much better forums for that conversation. Graft 03:45, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] justification for war

There are things Saddam definetely needs to answer for. There are two clearly different issues here that seem to be intertwined with each other in your arguments, justification of war and saddam's guilt... Something definetely needed to be done about Saddam, I do not disagree and I don't think Kerry disagrees either, but war should be used as a last resort. We did not exhaust all other options, and as the Duelfer report showed, sanctions were effective in keeping WMDs out of Saddam's hands. No doubt that he wanted to, and who knows what would have been done, but that does not necessarily justify invasion. You must see the external consequences we have suffered in the eyes of the muslim world by invading a country which by no means directly threatened the US. Yes, they probably would have given some chemical weapons away in the future if they got any, Yes Saddam is a bad guy, but in the world of politics that is all irrelevent. We have invaded a soverign muslim nation, exactly what Osama predicted we would do, and as a result have strengthened Al Qaeda more than anything they could have done themselves. These drastic consequences could have been avoided by other means than full-scale pre-emptive invasion of a country that did not directly threaten us. The big problem with your argument is that any criteria you set for why Iraq was ok applies to so many countries, what are we going to do, invade them all? --kizzle 01:06, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the same criteria used for Iraq could be applied to other countries. Iraq was a priority because Saddam was too bad a character to leave in control of oil resources, and the credibility of the UN was at stake, and he was tying down part of our navy and air force. A democratic Iraq will be a good counter to Iran and a politically acceptable military base than Saudi Arabia. Both wahabi and ayatollah daemonization and the Israeli situation was making the US reputation worse in the muslim world. More secular muslim intellectuals probably welcome the liberation of Iraq and hope an example of democracy succeeds there. There are a lot of arabian experts that believe that power is what is respected there.

I don't think justifying an attack on a government is hard, one innocent person being tortured or conscripted is enough, after all governments do not a right to exist and they are justified only to the extent that they protect and respect individuals. An attack on the US government as on most others, is justified, if one can credibly hope to improve the situation here, the US government has committed its share of mass murders, but there is little doubt that it is more effective at protecting individuals than Saddam's government.

What is happening in North Korea is terrible and anyone that knows of it should do something about it if possible. N Korea want's bilateral negotiations, the problem is it won't agree to a bilateral war, it is holding S Korea and its "own" people hostage with daunting conventional power. It is misconception that the failure to act there is because they already have nuclear weapons. Those weapons are not currently a threat to the US. The deterrent is what their artillery could do to Seoul.

One doesn't need the consent of an organization of dictators to help someone in need, as we did in Iraq. It doesn't even matter if most people there prefer an oppressive government because of a misguided nationalism or a fear of terrorism, that doesn't give them the right to impose it upon others.--Silverback 07:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's the thing. I think you and I are on the same page that Saddam needed to be dealt with. However, all that you are saying now is not the reason we went into war. These are merely post-decision justification, these weren't the reason to go to war. Thus, while *Iraq* is better off now than they were before, the *world* is not. And also, if one innocent person being tortured or conscripted is enough, so because of Abu Ghraib does that justify Europe invading us? --kizzle 19:37, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

I've gone into my views of the justification and relative merits of the Iraq war at Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Fpahl vs Silverback and would welcome any responses or feedback on the points I make there. If the behavior at Abu Ghraib was official policy of the government at the top, then attacking the US government would be justified, but of course attacks on the rest of us, other than reasonable collateral damage, would not be justified. I doubt a group of European governments inclined to take offense at such behavior could in all intellectual honesty, rank the US in the top couple dozen of offenders.

I don't agree that the world is worse off. The middle east was already polarized over the Arab/Israeli conflict and the terrorists had been emboldened by the passive US response to the bombings in Kenya and of the Cole. Syria is intimidated, Libya has decided to join the community of nations, Iran is having to be more careful, the Israeli wall appears to be reducing terrorism there, there have been successful elections in Afghanistan, and the casualties have been mild by any historical standards given the accomplishments. Several middle easter countries already feel pressured to reform and have responded, although Saudi Arabia just used a lame execuse to deny women suffrage once again (they can't have their pictures taken). I've just seen an interview with some arab American leaders who were supporting Kerry, even though they admitted they represented communities that are refugees from the governments of the middle east and thus were pleased at the overthrow of Saddam and the introduction of democratic reforms, they still opposed Bush because of "what he has allowed Israel to do". I view this as an indication that the Arab/Israeli conflict is actually still more polarizing there than Iraq. --Silverback 09:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is some that I agree with you in the polarization of Israel, but you still haven't answered that these rationale you are providing for the war in Iraq were not the ones given to us upon going to war. --kizzle 17:54, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

They were not the reasons emphasized in the legal maneuvering before the UN, but they all had been mentioned before the war and most were known at the time of the 1st gulf war. I opposed that gulf war, because the "new world order" rhetoric that the first Bush was emphasizing, as best as I could discern, was that Saddam had no right to oppress Kuwaitis, but had every right to oppress Iraqis. I contended then and still contend, that he had every bit as much right to oppress Kuwaitis as he did Iraqis, and that right is none. I did not find the rationale for that war convincing, despite the UN approval.--Silverback 18:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your usage of the word "oppress" is incorrect and an oversimplification of the situation. The first Gulf War was fought because Saddam, who believed he had the U.S's support in invading Kuwait, thought that there were oil fields under Kuwaiti control that were his due to the ambiguous borders between the two. It is questionable which side was right, but it was not simply for kicks or "because" he was a dictator, it was a matter of ownership of resources. Any rhetoric the first Bush espoused can be ignored completely as we were lied to back then as well (do you remember the incubator story about how Saddam's forces broke into a hospital and killed babies... along with the testimony to this of a 15-year-old girl who happened to "witness" the incident, she wouldn't reveal her last name due to "security" concerns, it was later found out that she wouldn't reveal her name because she was the daughter of the ambassador to Kuwait).

No, I don't remember this, I'm not sure what its relevance is, did Bush repeat this story and make it a key issue in the UN negotiations or was it just in the news?--Silverback 08:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And no, sir, I vehemently disagree these reasons were known before the war. Could we really have been sold the war on "weapons of mass destruction related program activities" or that "he is a brutal dictator"?? No. Absolutely not. Read Paul O'Neill's Price of Loyalty. Read Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies. Read Bob Woodward's Plan of attack. And optionally, read Craig Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud. --kizzle 05:54, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

How were the issues, not known before the 1st gulf war? Saddam had used chemical weapons before and it was feared he would even use them in the conflict. He was a known oppressor and conscripter and had violently suppressed dissent and opposition. Are you defending his right to oppress his own people? The meeting Saddam had before the war, where he was given relatively ambiguous signals about how the US would view an invasion, is no justification for the invasion. I don't think starting a war to resolve disputes about oil resources is supported by Just War theory.--Silverback 08:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm pretty busy in RL at the moment, but enjoyed reading your comment! Probably, I'll comment again in due time! Best regards! /Tuomas 20:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] draft

a) yes, i've reverted you 3 times over 3 days. you've reverted me the same amount. you have also reverted 3 other editors on this issue, and incorrectly accused 1 of vandalism. fyi, the 3 revert rules is 3 in 1 day, not 3 total.

And you are taking full advantage of your three reverts.

b) the snippet you keep including falls so far below any reasonable standard for npov, factuality backing, reasonable placement in the article, or a reasonable link, that it does not even pass the laugh test.

You obviouslly have not reviewed the other supporting material

c) i have not refused to participate in anything. i have explained clearly in the edit summaries my objections. i'd be happy to go cut and paste those into talk if you'd them easier to read there.

yes please do, and support your position with argument rather than mere assertion

d) trying to insert that in the manner you have is a classic weasel tactic. if it's important, put it in the text. put some words around it to explain context and content. put in a link that documents this is actually his position. maybe npov can be achieved by iterating that way.

I can work towards this. just asserting a judgement you've made in the edit summary, constantly exploiting your right to revert three times, and not defending your position, is the weasal top.

e) i have very little tolerance left for those who try using wikipedia to insert partisan political points. see my comment in talk:media bias on the issue. i will vigorously oppose you, unless you take affirmative steps to make the material you insert npov.

You hypocritically did not object to the Revival of the draft site, which was attempting to bring in internet inuendo without facing the scrutiny of the existing conscription page. Exactly whose partisan viewpoint are you suggesting I was inserting? It was John Kerry's position, as stated in his position paper. You keep asking whether it is his "current" position as if that was relevant. What makes his "current" position any more or less POV than his past one? Both are facts.

d) warmest regards. p.s. i like you name and find it suits you. Wolfman 15:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think so too. It is nice to have something slightly positive about old age. Lets please take these discusions to the conscription talk page, so we can hash it out and others can contribute.

[edit] Survey

There is a survey regarding a disputed paragraph in the PNAC article that you might be interested in. Kevin Baas | talk 19:10, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

[edit] Conscription series

Hi - glad to see someone picking up the ball on these. Ive just started Template:Conscription as an attempt to maybe sort out some of the mess. The US branch article was long coming, and I was a bit puzzled as to why it wasnt developed before. SinReg-SV 17:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There was also supposed to be a page, for non-military and peacetime conscription, such as that proposed by John Kerry and that used by Solomon to build the temple in Jerusalem. National Service did not work out for this purpose. Thanx for your efforts.--Silverback 17:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Modernization theory: I urge you to cite your sources

And, also, instead of (generic, unidentified) 'critics,' you should attempt to remain topical: Modernization theorists respond to Wallerstein with..., etc. Again though, cite your sources — this is pivotal. El_C

[edit] PNAC

Thanks for your efforts to find a solution to this madness. Your intervention may well be what is needed to break us out of this impasse. VeryVerily 04:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lancet Study (Iraq excess deaths)

I propose that we restore the reference and note that the methodology and conclusions are subject to ongoing critique. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:2003_Invasion_of_Iraq

[edit] Current Events

I would appreciate your feedback in Talk:Current_events. Thanks, Dejitarob 06:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I get the impression that you and I disagree on almost all political topics. That said, I'm glad you're working on the Iraq War pages. If you weren't there, I (and others) would unintentially add our own POV, which I don't want to have happen. I also, being human, tend to overlook facts that don't support my position or accidently misread statements to be more in line with my own views, and you catch me in that. You seem to sincerely want accurate, NPOV text. That makes you my ally as well as my opponent. Thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 03:04, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Honest people will find more areas of agreement than they realize, especially if they are secure enough to admit mistakes. We both abhor the taking of innocent life. However, I think when innocent life is being taken in "peace" time, it blurs the bright moral line between war and peace. The brutality of war can be more honest, and more likely to conclude. Perhaps the Bush administration has miscalculated, but the resources and destructiveness of the Saddam regime, allowed a lot of room for error.--Silverback 10:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Do you know any exceptions?

I don't know any governing organizations for competitive anything that openly condone steroids. There are certainly some that look the other way. If you know any that have explicitly said steroids are allowed if you compete in their events, change it to "almost all." Otherwise, you seem to be writing this from an unusual perspective. alteripse 01:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say "condone", there are many that haven't banned them, even major league baseball only recently got around to it. I doubt man of the minor sports have even addressed the issue. I think banning them is a bit of an artificial way of achieving "fairness", as if nature itself was fair. If I want to take anabolic steroids and HGH to improve my chances of experiencing a sub-14 second 100 meter dash (my natural endowment is really poor), I should be able to do it. If people want to have different categories of competition some unlimited (enhancement allowed) others restricted to natural endowments, and perhaps others with carefully controlled steroid levels so that the playing field is level (only some get supplemental drugs), that would be the free, non-coercive solution. Unfortunately, the market probably won't support that many leagues and some people ("liberals") are really fond of sending the government after people with guns.--Silverback 01:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] my compliments

I've been reading alot of your contributions on talk pages, and I wanted to compliment you on your insight, particularly in regards to communism. You seem to understand the difference between a commune and a totalitarian state, which is something few others seem to be able to do. I must say however that in regards to Left right politics, your definitions are unorthodox. Unfortunately, the only solid footing we have in regards to the terms is their origin, the time just prior to revolution in France, w monarchists on the right, and liberals (in the classical sense) on the left. That’s obviously very different from today, which is why I think things like the Political Spectrum are so handy. Anyhow, I wanted to thank you for so often being the voice of reason, and give you my $.02 on the left right (false) dichotomy. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] "Dry drunk"

Thanks for your note. The original addition of the point to the George W. Bush article used some language like "it has been observed", as if it were an established fact, and lumped all the referenced articles together. I tried to make it more encyclopedic by changing "observed" to "argued" and by using a verbatim quotation from the article by an expert. As for the other cited articles, there's certainly some truth to your deprecation of them. Nevertheless, articles about political figures can, I think, reasonably report on what their opponents are saying about them -- rhetoric and all -- provided the attacks are reported as argument rather than presented as fact. JamesMLane 20:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-democracy forces and the U.S.

Silverback, you said on Talk:Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004 that you don't believe anyone can support the idea that the U.S. is not there to support democracy factually or historically. I'm assuming you're joking about the latter, or else displaying your extreme ignorance of American foreign policy. The U.S. has historically been a strong supporter of friendly dictatorships (e.g. Egypt, fairly high on the list of repressive governments), and in other instances has helped install dictatorships (e.g. the rule of the colonels in Greece after 1964, the Shah in Iran, etc.,etc. - as time goes on the documentary record will probably furnish more and more robust examples). So I'm not sure what you're talking about there. As to the current Iraqi regime, while what comes out of official channels has never contravened the desire for democracy, the moves that have been made are not entirely encouraging (e.g. repeated postponement of elections, appointment of the autocratic Allawi). Just some food for thought... Graft 16:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Silverback... I wasn't referring to cold-war era support above. The US continues to provide support and arms to many dictatorial regimes (we provide several billion in aid and arms to the Mubarak government in Egypt, which is and always has been a notoriously repressive dictatorship), and the support of democracy has been rather thin. For example, the Bush administration has supported coups in both Venezuela and in Haiti in the past three years against democratically elected governments. This is not indicative of supporting democracy, and it is not a result of Cold-War politics. I'm not sure why you mention territorial ambition - the U.S. is perfectly capable of supporting dictators without having territorial designs. As to the existence of forces within the Iraqi resistance that are opposed to democracy, this does NOT imply that the resistance can be accurately described as "anti-democratic", that is, explicitly fighting against democracy, since those fighting are highly diverse in ideology. Graft 19:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] From ViP

On 12/13/2004 between 12:33 and 12:55 pm, my firewall software detected an attack from 207.142.131.245 www03.wikimedia.org, the nature of the attack was "Microsoft Multiple Application/OS GDI+ JPEG Processing Buffer Overflow Vulnerability attempt detected". I've never had any dealings with wikimedia, but my understand is that it is closely associated with wikipedia. Please investigate a possible virus, or malicious administrator at your site.--Silverback 12:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It looks to me like someone may have uploaded a JPEG containing the GDI+ buffer exploit. Although it could be a false alarm. Can I ask the following questions to clarify... Were you viewing a wikipedia page at the time of the warning? Did the page contain images? What is your OS? What is your firewall? -- FirstPrinciples 22:23, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq occupation

Hi, I hadn't realized the discussions I archived had recent comments. Thanks for fixing it. Maurreen 05:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] wrt most skeptics

In essence the change you have made is simply an expansion on the idea placed two sentences above:

"Some indirect solar effects may be very important and are not accounted for by the models. Or then again, they might not be important at all. (Source: The Skeptical Environmentalist)"

and would better fit at the end of that sentence. The problem being, of course, that no one has a proven mechanism for this solar amplification although several have been proposed.

Also I think "most skeptics".... is more than a bit of a stretch and I doubt you could establish that point. Awaiting your reply, I would simply move your addition up in the paragraph and maybe put "among the ideas put forth". Jhalpern 16:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neoconservatism

May I assume that at Talk:Neoconservatism (United States), when you wrote "probitive" you meant "probative", as in "Furnishing evidence or proof" and not some other word? I'm asking here rather than there because I don't want to muddy the discussion, just trying to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Even if I've understood the word correctly, I'm not sure I've correctly understood your meaning. "Probative" as in being a Jew would be a requirement to be a neoconservative? Or something else. Clarification of that would be appreciated (especially if I've misunderstood) and should probably go on that talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:04, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, this is really an article I hadn't intended to plunge into. OK: I think it's important that most of the early neocons came out of New York City Jewish leftist culture. If it were only one or two, it would be of negligible importance, but it's not: it's more like half a dozen of the key figures, including Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb, Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter, both husband-and-wife teams and all key neocons. Yes, it's relevant, if only as part of the history of the American left, that a significant portion of the Old Left reacted against the New Left and moved to the right, and that a very large number of those who did so were Jews. It's also significant as part of the history of American Jewry, because up to that time nearly all significant Jewish political involvement in the U.S. was on the left.

Are you at all familiar with Max Schachtman? He didn't exactly end up a neocon, but he's another (slightly earlier) figure who took a similar course.

Again, I think it is very easy to exaggerate the degree to which neoconservatism is rooted in a specific left politics (especially Trotskyism: that is really mostly just Kristol), but its roots in New York Jewish leftism are pretty clear and quite interesting. I come from the same tradition, but didn't follow their trajectory. Like many movements, they later picked up adherents from different backgrounds, but (given that I don't see their ideology as having changed much since the '70s -- do you?) it is important to understand the milieu in which neoconservatism developed, and I think it would be an outright falsification to deny that was a secular Jewish milieu. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:59, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Atkins

Hi Silverback, thanks for your comments. As a bodybuilder myself and also a amatuer mountain bike racer (and no, the two don't mix very well but what the hell, it's fun!) I can look at the athletics side of the diet from both bodybuilding and aerobic training points of view.

The pre-contest 'cutting' diet of bodybuilding is indeed somewhat similar to the Atkins diet in that it is low in carbs (to create an energy deficiet) and high in protein (to hopefully maintain muscle mass), although I've never heard of anyone eating the actual Atkins diet pre-contest. In the rest of the year, bodybuilders eat excesses of all food groups to add as much muscle as possible, recognizing the excess energy demands of both the training itself and the energy demands of muscle growth and sustainance.

In aerobic training, the concept of 'carb depletion before carb loading died out some time ago; now athletes just pile on the carbs in the last few days before competition without attempting to achieve a 'over-fill' from 'depletion' anymore. Dan100 13:16, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hello. Please provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Hyacinth 02:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bombing of Dresden in World War II

Please see Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Where is the straw poll? Perhaps the issues should be separated. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strauss

Edit as you will on the point on Strauss. I haven't read enough of MacDonald to know what here was MacDonald and what was Jacquerie.

BTW, I've noticed that even if our initial contact was a disagreement, we are more often than not on the same side of what actually belongs in an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:08, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

The main page (WP:VfD) should only contain an inclusion link to the sub-page, i.e. to list FOO on VfD, the entry on the main VfD page should be "{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FOO}}" - just that, and nothing more. What that does is include the text from the FOO sub-page when you look at WP:VfD, but it's not in the page source for WP:VfD. (Actually, even that inclusion entry is in a sub-page of WP:VfD - the actual coment page is a sub-sub-page). That way, people adding comments about a particular page don't have to edit any of the main VfD pages, which is likely to cause "edit conflicts", with so many people adding comments. Noel (talk) 14:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome. Noel (talk) 13:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Politically motivated VfD on your part

I find it very unfortunate that you're willing to waste the communitys time with politically motivated votes for deletion. The human shield action to Iraq was of course notable and any cursory search of the myriads of commentary and news articles surrounding the subject is evidence of that. It also featured on around half a dozen global TV networks (of which O'Keefe was mostly the interviewee). If you'd done some research you'd know this. Thankfully others have so you're attempt to delete the O'Keefe article is likely to fail. In the future please don't waste the community's time with these politically motivated votes for deletion. Christiaan 9:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent versus Published

Prefacing a comment with "published" is an attempt at "appeal to authority" which is a persuasian technique. Words like "apparent" refer to what has appeared, or is seen. The more important thing, is that people have observed temperature changes, not that they then published them. It's better to speak more directly about what actually occured, than to try to authenticate things with appeals to authority, because even when true, the appeal to authority feels much more like POV pushing. Such things are more likely to turn people off than a simple presentation of what actually occurred. — Cortonin | Talk 21:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have responded to this on talk:Global warming--Silverback 23:11, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Children in the IPC

I appreciate your reverting an attempt to restore that terrible old version. I realize that you also reverted my latest edit, but I'm fine with that: I'll try to be more careful and either make small incremental changes or discuss big changes first. Please keep an eye on it, it's been a WP sore ever since it was created under POV title by now banned Alberuni. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Silverback

Hi, Silverback I'm Mark, I noted your good edits on Karl Marx. Should you need any help on that page I'll be glad to help you out (BTW El_C is a troll).--198 02:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion or liberation?

IMO invasion is not POV. In the cold war era there was a view that if people only fought defensive wars then war would cease so invasion was a no-no. But that makes no sense today in world of failed states. Invasions can enable a liberation. I would say that Irak is yet to be liberated because the Iraki people are still subject to terror from the resistace. The courageous Iraki voters have taken tho a huge step on that path tho. (Hearing those voters saying "let the resisance kill me so long as I vote first" etc was moving wasn't it.)

Having said that "enabling Irakis to take their freedom" needs to be in the results of the invasion box.

How long before protection will be lifted? Dejvid 02:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Don't abuse the minor edit box.

Sorry. I didn't know that using the rollback link automatically marks reverts as minor edits. You're correct. It wasn't a minor edit. I'll be more careful in future. Tim Ivorson 12:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi insurgency page move

Please vote to support the move from Iraqi resistance → Iraqi insurgency at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Thanks! ObsidianOrder 12:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Republic of China" and "Taiwan"

Hello Silverback. Thanks for joining the discussion over the titles of several China-related articles. You mentioned that " In some of my research for wikipedia contributions, I've had to search, and have found Taiwan to be a far more useful key word, and because of that and the context in the articles, I have had to explicity reference Taiwan, even though I was wiki linking to the republic article. It must have been some strained politics that resulted in the wikipedia policy that is being cited. ". Would you mind why you would have thought Taiwan is a more useful keyword, and therefore should be used as the title? "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" have different meanings, which are not entirely overlaps. — Instantnood 18:18, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

Re: Taiwan vs Republic of China

It's indeed very true even thinktanks like PNAC uses "Taiwan" but not "Republic of China". Nonetheless would anybody who advocates somebody's interests consider the non-Taiwan parts of the ROC so important that "Taiwan" fails to denote the ROC? Probably only the residents of the non-Taiwan parts and editors of encyclopedias would. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is a place where accuracy is among the most important. — Instantnood 15:38 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

Re: Taiwan vs Republic of China

I have similar view on the PRC. Nonetheless Taiwan is not an accurate term to denote the entirety of all territories under the ROC's control. Using Taiwan to represent the ROC is just like "Holland" and "England" to the Netherlands and the UK (as MarkSweep has mentioned somewhere). No one would object using "the Netherlands" and "the United Kingdom" to replace "Holland" and "England" where appropriate, then why "the Republic of China"? — Instantnood 16:47 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of sources referring to the Taiwan Strait islands as Taiwan

Since the advocates of the terminology "Republic of China" consider islands other than the island of Taiwan (esecially Quemoy and Matsu) significant, I am putting together a list at User:Susvolans/List of sources referring to the Taiwan Strait islands as Taiwan. Feel free to edit it. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 18:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etiquette in the Anarchism article

Your revision of Anarchism at 11:51 on February 26th, fucked up edits that had nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism. I for one, don't really care about the capitalism / anti-capitalism argument that is going on, but please dont revert edits by people who are working on different sections of the article in the process. - Nihila 14:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Etiquette is free - capitalists have no excuse not to use it. - Nihila 14:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Just try not to run over other people's toes and maybe they will do the same for you. :P - Nihila 14:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming

Sorry. It doesn't matter who the parties are; there is a disptue, and reversions will likely begin as soon as the article is unprotected. The article is not ready to be unprotected. 172 17:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Silverback! I really appreciate your ability and willingness to concede a point in good grace (as recently with the different models used for climate prediction to 2100). Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 02:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] donkey punch category

what do you think of changing donkey punch category from "violence" to a more specific subcat, such as Category:Abuse or Category:Domestic_abuse? --Smooth Henry 10:55, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medicine

Please quote on the discussion page of the article Medicine, the sentences of the section Patient-doctor relationship (revision as of 10:43, 28 Feb 2005) you find flawed and your arguments so we can discuss it together and make it more NPOV. It is in the interest of Wikipedia and I hope, also our interest not to start a reversion war, but to try to reach an agreement. Thanks. --Eleassar777 12:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: 172

To be honest, you tend to come of as ranting, and I'm not sure that it's really helping anything. In fact, the Arbitrators may be more inclined to skip over a long diatribe, and miss the main arguments we're trying to present. I had already prepared a rebuttal to his "quitting", in case one of the Arbitrators made it an issue. -- Netoholic @ 00:00, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

[edit] Use and Abuse

I didn't lose information; I moved the side effects up to the new Effects section; at least I don't think I lost info. Could you do a check on the version you wrote and make sure there aren't duplicated paragraphs in the two sections? I'm a little snow-blind on that article. Blair P. Houghton 16:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I'd cut out the part about competitiveness because it was both poorly worded and fairly obvious yet still shallow. I was thinking of putting in something specific about the recent history of baseball to make the conflict more concrete. I may yet. Blair P. Houghton 19:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classical definition of republic

Please see the improved version at Wikinfo:Classical Republic. Also, I need your vote on vanavsos. Thanks.WHEELER 17:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee case opening

I am having trouble with classical works and definitions. It seems that User:Snowspinner is out to get me and destroy all classical works.

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the request for arbitration against you. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt   ҈  20:19, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Can I get your help in this regard?WHEELER 14:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle

Thanks for your support vote. Can you point me to references for Ron Santos being the 'first insulin dependant baseball player'? Thanks. Niteowlneils 16:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dividend tax

Thanks for the correction. I'm not a professional economist, and sometimes I make mistakes in these articles. Pakaran 18:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: comment on Talk:FOX News

In reply to Kevin Baas, you say:

Bush is a champion of self determination, how else is a nation to "choose" except democratically. Iraq "chose" Saddam about as much as it "chose" the US invasion.

Bush's idea of democracy is more limited than my own. I expect that the best self determination that Iraqis can hope for will include, with Bush's blessing, the WTO, which leaves Bush's own protectionism nearly unpunished, overruling economic decisions of an elected government (but this would be an improvement over Saddam's regime).

Bush doesn't even consistently support his "democracy" and I don't agree that opposing Bush's policies means not being able to. Why would Bush make an ally of Soviet dictator Islam Karimov, if he supported democracy? If Iraq is allowed democracy, we will owe it to something other than Bush's love of democracy.

However good some of his policies are, Bush is part of the problem (as are his allies, including our own "socialist" Blair) and not because he's American or Protestant. Bush is up to no good and, even if you could recall him, it would be better to have a US president who doesn't need such close supervision.

Tim Ivorson 17:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't in good conscience vote for Bush, but I don't hide the fact that I strongly prefer him to Kerry or the United Nations, both of which I have little respect for and grant even less moral authority to. I've disagreed with the policies of the WTO and the world bank in the past, and I am surprised that other countries put up with the imposition of intellectual property rights by the US, Japan and Europe. You'd think that such an artificial thing would be optional. They must want access to western markets bad, or lack the intellectual wherewithal the make their case.

I am surprised that I have such strong positive feelings about the war in Iraq, probably because it was fought by such moral means, without conscription and with extreme care to preserve civilian infrastructure, and the armistace terms where aid is given rather than reparations sought have to be marveled at and put it head and shoulders above any significant conflict in the last hundred years. I can respect a pacifist position, but certainly wonder that someone could think other wars can be defended over this one. --Silverback 19:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought that the other candidates were so weak that Badnarik would get at least some EC votes. Tim Ivorson 12:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nah, when your candidate is weak then you demonize the other side. Fear. The US needs reform that gives minority viewpoints proportional representation. We can't rely upon majority benevolence and respect for the constitution any more. A minority may be 15 to 30% everywhere, but not a majority in any winner take all state or congressional district, and so has no voice or representation. And the major parties like it that way.--Silverback 12:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zen-master

My comment, unlike yours, was serious. Zen-master's actions were a refreshing change from most of what we see on /3RR. Noel (talk) 13:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did enjoy your poke at PaperBoys. I love these socks, they show up and immediately head to some obscure corner of Wikipedia. Riiiggghhhtttt. Noel (talk) 13:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How do you spin this sort of thing?

Silverback, I'm curious how you spin this sort of thing: http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050324/NEWS/503240308/1002/NEWS01 with regard to Bush's "moral" way of waging war. —Christiaan 09:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I believe in open government, so I think the caskets should be allowed to be photographed. But I suspect the reason photography is prohibited is to prevent the press from playing up emotionally rather than rationally the human toll of the war in Iraq. Rationally, the one or two thousand lives the US has lost in Iraq is a drop in the bucket compared to the approximately 2 million who die in the US each year or when compared to the US losses in Vietnam. I suspect, that she would be disappointed with the "repectful" way the caskets are treated. I know from my fathers burial with military honors that the individuals that perform rituals over and over are bored stiff and can't wait to get home or their next meal. I think you should keep in perspective how evil various government actions are. If history is any guide, the US government is kill 10s of thousands of its own innocent civilians each year by the FDA delays in approving life saving medicines. Frankly, when one government destroys another, I count it a net gain.--Silverback 12:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I guess so. Hitler was a rational think too. —Christiaan 20:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reason and values are orthogonal, don't expect too much from reason without values or with the wrong values.--Silverback 20:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

I'm not sure why you're pursuing this KingOfAllPaperboys thing, but the only evidence you seem to be offering is coincidences in timing, which is pretty useless. Given how many accounts there are on Wikipedia, the argument could be made for an immense number of people, so it proves nothing. You could track down a developer and see if they're willing to help you, if it's important enough to you. Also, it is not at all helpful, when people rebut one of your accusations, to just turn around and make the same accusation about somebody else chosen with no more rhyme or reason than your first target. Please stop. --Michael Snow 23:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because I think an admin with a sockpuppet is a pretty serious thing. Is there a list of developers? -- thanx, --Silverback 23:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The basic list is at m:Developer. --Michael Snow 00:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanx, I've posted my request on the developer talk page.--Silverback 00:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:KingofAllPaperboys

Thanks for the heads up, but — while it is not for me to decide whether Mr KingofAllPaperboys is a sock puppet or merely a remarkable, astounding, really-quite-shocking newbie — he's not my sock puppet. Believe me, I have no problem reverting Netoholic under my own username. In fact, it's a hobby. — Itai (f&t) 20:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Depleted Uranium

Thanks for your edit to depleted uranium. I've been in kind of a stand-off with Christiaan on the issue, and I'm glad to have another opinion. Hopefully we can try to get the article to be more NPOV. --Bonus Onus 02:10, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hey

hey, thanks for the comments earlier on the arbitration case. RJII 14:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) Hey, you might want to put some of the stuff from your proposed intro in the new Free Market section of the capitalism article, like the self-organization and decentralization stuff. RJII 05:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] nicely put

I chanced upon your 14:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) comment in Talk:2003 Invasion of Iraq/Fpahl vs Silverback. I just wanted to say I agree completely, it's nicely put. "When a government does not protect the rights of its citizens, it has no legitimacy" - should be inscribed at the entrance to the UN in five-foot-tall letters. ObsidianOrder 15:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanx, its nice to see that someone actually uses the archives.--Silverback 23:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism

Hi Silverback, I've left three requests for citations on Talk:Capitalism for your recent edit to the intro. I'd be grateful if you could supply them please. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I addressed you concerns about plagerism on the talk page. Yes, I can write that well. Any similarity to any other text is mere convergence.--Silverback 00:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Can you either redirect your Meta user page to your Wikipedia user page or add an explanation? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 05:28, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming

Are there really people (ie, real people, not politicians or people in the pocket of the oil industry) who doubt the very foundations of climate change the way Ed appears to? I always thought the arguments were about nitpicky things - whether models that are maybe 70% accurate are "good enough" to be considered "consensus". Reading Ed's comments left me shaking, horrified. Guettarda 21:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was struck that Ed seemed to be speaking as if there was only opinion not knowledge. That said, there is reason for skepticism about the dire predictions of the extent of global warming and its consequences, and there is good reason to think that taking any measures with hundreds of billions of dollars of economic impact is premature and probably wrong even if Global warming is right. Although, WMC seems to have a visceral opposition to Fred Singer, Singer points to valid weaknesses in the global warming evidence, and we would all be more informed if the questions he raises were answered, especially the reliance on the predictions of climate models, which are unable to match the temperature data. On the SEPP talk page, I mention Singers peer reviewed publications this year, which point to these issues with the models, and suggest that surface issues in the handling of the tropical oceans may be the source of problems. New data on the CO2 levels from Hawaii show a much lower increase this year than in previous years, contrary to what one would expect from human emissions. Climate feedback mechanisms are too poorly understood and modeled for the level of fearmongering and economic measure that have been undertaken. There are lots of things that can be done with 100s of billions of dollars taken out of economic growth by Kyoto type measures, so it is no wonder that this is politicized.--Silverback 22:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I disagree with you in terms of the costs/benefits given the potential risks, but of course skepticism is valid. As for costs, BTW, according to Clinton's science advisor, Kyoto's costs are ~1/2 what we spend on clean air enforcement. It's reassuring to hear your interpretation... I suppose I was mostly shocked because I though (think?) well of Ed overall. Guettarda 23:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be concerned, on the contrary, if valid questions were not or could not be raised. I would be concerned becaue that would mean that the evidence was not scientific. Climate models are pretty sophisticated and have improved since earlier ones and are constantly improving, the ability to match predictions; the accuracy; has gone up drastically, and is continuing to improve. So far, as the climate models have improved in this way, they have provided progressively stronger verification of the theory of global warming. So what's your point?

You said "and there is good reason to think that taking any measures with hundreds of billions of dollars of economic impact is premature and probably wrong even if Global warming is right." How is this so? Trees don't grow on money. Our fundamental resource is this planet. When you have $100 billion more dollars, you can purchase all the dirt you want, but the ecosystem is getting worse, you're losing capital. The ecosystem is ontologically prior to the economy; the health of the economy depends on the health of the ecosystem (as does the health of our bodies). When you spend money faster than you make money, you will run out of money. Is this the right thing to do? is this the wise decision, to run out of money, when it is possible for you to not run out of money, by spending slower? Money doesn't grow on trees. Trees don't grow on money. You cannot eat money. Perhaps we should switch from the gold standard to the ecosystem standard - maybe then more people will understand. Essentially, this is what other animals do, when they fight over territory on the basis of the ecological resources that the territories provide. The value of the territory is proportional to the ecological resources. Don't be fooled by our abstract system of barter - the laws of physics haven't changed, we still build houses with wood and stone, and eat fish and meat and fruit and vegetables, and wear fabric made from animals and plants, etc. This stuff is not made out of money, and we will never be able to make it out of money, which we ultimately have to make out of something other than money in the first place. What good is money if there's nothing to purchase with it? If oil prices are twice as high, what does it matter if we have 1.5 times the dough? That's called "inflation", it's what happens when the ratio of ecological resources to currency goes down. The value of the dollar is based on what it can buy, it is not fixed. What can be bough is based on what can be produced, what can be produced is based on raw materials, raw materials come from the environment. The buck stops there. The buck starts and stops at the ecosystem. You throw it away, you're throwing money away. You throw money away, that's called deflation. Kevin Baas^talk 23:28, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

The models and their fit to the data are unfortuantely much weaker than you think. Here are a couple journal articles that Fred Singer was co-author was on that make just this point: [1] [2]. And to note another factor no accounted for the 2001 IPCC predictions, check out the climate commitment studies I referenced on the Global warming page.

The effects of Kyoto, despite its expense, are going to be difficult to even detect, while the effects of Global warming are not all negative, there will be energy savings and benefits to agriculture for instance. While the economic costs of Kyoto such as sea level rise are probably more cheap to mitigate directly than to try to prevent by Kyoto type measure which end up limiting economic growth. Yes there is some inflation, but the price of oil also has something to do with increased demand. In the long run that increase in the price of oil may do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than Kyoto, although, it may have the opposite effect if coal rather than nuclear is substituted. It is pretty clear that the eco-system is not at stake, based on much higher greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere in the geological past. The temperatures themselves were experienced in the last 1000 years with just natural variability. Even at current temperatures, climate commitment effects probably already guarantee that sea levels are going to rise for several hundred years. So Kyoto is a drop in the bucket at a precious price. Even the poor in countries likely to be impacted by sea level rise would probably benefit more if those dollars were spent on health care rather than Kyoto.--Silverback 23:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The simplest questions are what if...if current models are accurate, it isn't just the few tens of thousands of people from low-lying countries who will be displaced, it's 17 million Bangladeshis. True, Kyoto was too little, too late. But isn't there something deeply immoral about the idea of poor people displaced so that rich people can drive SUVs? The money not spent on Kyoto isn't being spent on health care for the poor. It's being spent to SUVs and ever-larger houses to heat. And if the dire warning come true,

The idea that "the ecosystem is not at stake" is not "pretty clear". True, predicted warming is in the historic range, but the predicted rate of warming is well outside of the range. Even if it wasn't/isn't, habitat fragmentation means that the "avenues of escape" are gone. Trees migrate rather slowly, and they migrate extremely slowly across farmland. Exotic species become more prevalent in disturbed areas - so it's entirely possible that the "greening" earth will be one covered with kudzu. I may not be an expert on GCMs and aerosols, but I do know something about forest ecology. Guettarda 00:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, first, someone has to tell me how to "mitigate sea (as in ocean) level rise directly". Maybe the advances in science, which have given us technological solutions, might have an answer - - oh wait, it does. Well, if we don't like that solution, maybe we can try good old fashioned religion... That's right, all we need to do is pray and not believe that we eat food, or in any thing such as Lotka-Volterra equations, food chains, or population dynamics (speaking of health care rather than Kyoto).

It's time to think long-term. I get so bored with everyone not thinking past their own lifetime. It is so easy to live until old age. You can do it without thinking once. So what are we talking about here? Are we talking about global warming, or the economy? Are we talking about policies? What are we talking about? Hold on, let me look at the section title: oh yeah! Global Warming. Isn't that some kind of science thing? Hold on, let me look it up in an encyclopedia...

But first, won't someone tell me how to mitigate sea level rise "directly"? Wouldn't that be through precipitation, you know, the "water-cycle"? Wouldn't that be the most direct route? Kevin Baas^talk 08:41, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

At 10 to 30cm of sea level rise over the next century, there are many forms of direct mitigation for those affected, better construction techniques near shore, migrating villages further inland, sea walls, artificial barrier islands, better fresh water management to reduce salt water invasion, etc. Of course, there may not need to be any special international programs for such measures to happen. The best strategy might be to continue the economic growth which benefits the third world, so that third would nations beyond just India, Thailand, Malaysia, etc develop middle classes which can afford their own mitigation and so that there is more urbanization and coastal living becomes more specialized, for fisherman, vacationers, etc.--Silverback 09:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One problem with the whole economic growth idea is the famous number of 5% of the world's people (ie, the US) consuming 25% of the world's resources. If we get everyone up to a US (or even W.European) standard of living, where are the basic resources to support that going to come from? Don't get me wrong - I am from the Third World - I don't reject the aspiration of improving the standard of living. But does economic growth in the developed world really benefit the Third World? I lived through "structural adjustment" and the development of a vibrant, export-driven manufacturing sector. The result? The wealthy grew wealthier, and the average standard of living declined. 10-30 cm rise in itself is difficult to mitigate. Even as rich a country as the US doesn't seem to be able to find the money (or is it the will) to save the Mississippi Delta. Mangroves, coral reefs, wetlands, back reef communities, they are all threatened by rising sea levels in a way that is difficult to mitigate. I don't see how Bangladesh is going to manage the need to become Holland. As for places like the Maldives or some of the Pacific nations...they would have to import the material to create sea defenses. Add to that the problem of storm surges... Warming is likely to have an adverse effect of agriculture as well. Sure, CO₂ is a "fertiliser", but higher temperatures are likely to increase photorespiration rates. Increased microbial respiration rates may cause competition for nitrogen. Soybeans grown in enriched CO₂ environments are attacked more by pests, although forest trees appear to be less attacked - it's all a matter of resource allocation, growth or defense...it's impossible to predict (the eternal problem in biology - you can demonstrate something to be possible in the lab, but that says nothing about whether it is likely to be a significant driver in field conditions). One can choose to be optimistic or pessimistic, but realism demands that we consider average and worst-case predictions. If we have the time left over we can also put on our rose-tinted glasses and imagine the best-case scenario, but it's irresponsible to plan based on best-case predictions. Guettarda 15:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The US economy has in the last two or three decades become much more energy efficient per dollar of GNP, and the US economy itself has become more service and information oriented. Bits don't consume many resources, flat panels consume less energy than CRTs, telecommunters consume less energy than traditional commuters, etc. The US may be the end user of a lot of the worlds resources, but a lot of that consumption is indirect through other countries the US imports from. I think you also will find that the paradigm of using the third world as low priced unskilled manufacturing labor may not be the predominate model in the future. Already India is developing a substantial world presence in the information processing industry and the middle class there is surpassing the US in size if not yet in wealth. Even in China, where the economy is still more manufacturing than information, the workers are benefitting in the sense of having higher standards of living.

Don't underestimate the adaptability of lesser developed countries. Holland and Venice did not become what they are, with only the latest technology, but with technology existing decades and even centuries ago. The benefits of modern knowledge should provide more options for such transitions, not less. Don't underestimate indigenous populations of homo sapiens. So called primitive cultures have sophisticated cultures able to cope with harsh environmental conditions, for example, the eskimos of the north, or the aborigines of Austrailia, etc. The peoples in these lands, however, condescendingly primitive, our cultures see them as, are resourceful, they aren't just going to roll over and die.

We don't need to consider the worst-case predictions unless they are realistic and credible. And currently they aren't. They are predicting much more warming than paleo-climates indicate occur with CO2 increases, and their predictions are out of line with straight forward extrapolations of current temperature trends, and their models are not realistic, although they are fitted to and match surface temperature data well, they have much warmer troposphere temperature profiles than have been measured by satellites, balloons and 3 meter high sensors on buoys in the oceans. The CO2 increase for the last year was less that in previous years even though human contributions were larger. The models are poorly representing climate feedback mechanisms and are not yet ready realistic enough for prediction, even though the modelers are more than willing to do so.--Silverback 16:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 23:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Essentially everthing in that paragraph is wrong. There is no good way to know which predictions are credible or realistic. The prediction-using-palaeo stuff; or from extrapolating current trends, just isn't a good way to predict future T. The models are *not* fitted to match sfc T - you've just made that up. "much warmer trop profiles" - I presume you mean trends? If so, the answer is, it depends which versionof the satellite record you use.

(William M. Connolley 23:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Note that all the economic stuff is a red herring, because thats not what any of the current argument cycle is about. Note also that 'And to note another factor no[t] accounted for the 2001 IPCC predictions, check out the climate commitment studies I referenced on the Global warming page. is simply wrong: the commitment stuff is nothing new at all. Its in IPCC TAR, of course http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/345.htm. Note that Singers recent PR papers are distinctly dodgy: they truncate the satellite record at 1996 in order to avoid showing the warming you get if you use the full record. People may not have noticed that...

Singer truncates at 1996 because the treatment of snow changed, making that data inconsistent throughout its whole time period. He then analyzes seperately the non-snow impacted data all the way through 2003 and shows it does not alter their conclusions, and fully discloses all of this. He also reviews the literature, and apparently not only he and his co-authors but also the peer reviewers, thought the his use of the satellite data was valid. It's been awhile since I looked at the satellite data, has been another iteration in publications since these papers were published? The economic stuff is not irrelevant, because it is the reason there is controversy at all. If it wasn't for the fear mongering that resulted in policies like Kyoto, we'd all be happy to be patient and wait for the science to develope.

(William M. Connolley 11:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Singer struggles for an excuse to truncate to 96. As the GW page says (because I put it there) yes this is controversial because of the impacts but it *is* a red herring because we are not arguing over the economic impacts, its just background.

The paleo stuff is relevant, because until we can understand the discrepancy, we don't understand the climate. Of course, in the short term deviations from the geological scale equilibria can occur, but of course, the possible feedback mechanisms such as increased precipitation and erosion may actually operate right away. There may be no way to know which predictions are credible or realistic, unless the models have a track record of accurate and realistic prediction.

You are correct that I just "made up" that models are fitted to the surface data, if by that you mean that it is my own conclusion based on my assessment of the problems with the models, and their predictions based on physics that we know they don't include or model properly. However, the authors and these papers we are discussing apparently propose that as a possible cause of the model/surface data/vertical temperature profile discrepencies. I quote:

• • It seems improbable that results from satellites (MSU), NCAR/NCEP reanalysis (NNR), and Radiosondes, which agree with each other, would all be wrong. Therefore, it seems more likely that both the models and observed surface trends are problematic. Their apparent agreement may be a coincidence or perhaps reflect a “tuning” of the models to the surface temperature trends.

Note the last phrase. Certainly if the models had been tuned to the non-surface data, they should have done a better job fitting them.--Silverback 03:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 11:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Singer is a septic who knows nothing of the climate models. Repeating his vague insinuations won't help. The paper you place so much weight on can't bear the weight you put on it. Its not even true that the satellties all agree with each other, obviously, since there are multiple satellite records. NNR isn't an independent source, of course.

It is probably best to attribute the "vague insinuations" they published to all the authors. The overlap in the NNR data is only partial and is discussed by the authors. Christy, et al, published their response to the Vinnikov satellite data in this paper. [3] The difficulties of modeling are well known, and it is much easier to criticise them than it is to produce a realistic model incorporating surface and aerosol chemistry on a world wide scale, approximations and parameterizations will of course be necessary, but that is why skepticism is in order, and validation with real data is needed. Since the IPCC TAR, we have increased understandings of the amount of commitment already in the current climate, we have additional information about the amount of natural climate variation, both from Stouffer's modeling and the correction of the hockey stick by Moberg, and we have additional physical mechanisms that perhaps explain the stronger solar correlations (cosmic rays), and the papers we have discussed which confirm the satellite verticle temperature profile anamolie and suggest that a better understanding of tropical ocean surface interactions will be needed to improve the models.--Silverback 05:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "the commitment stuff is nothing new at all"

I checked the IPCC reference [4], and yes it does mention climate commitment, but in the context of calculating "climate sensitivity" and approximating "effective climate sensitivity".

• "Because of the long time-scales associated with deep ocean equilibration, the direct calculation of coupled model equilibrium temperature change for doubled CO2 requires an extended simulation and a considerable commitment of computer resources. One such calculation has been performed (Stouffer and Manabe, 1999). "[5]

The reason there was only one study available was because of the extremely long model runs needed:

• "For a full coupled atmosphere/ocean GCM, however, the heat exchange with the deep ocean delays equilibration and several millennia, rather than several decades, are required to attain it. "[6]

I don't have access to the full text of this study, here is the abstract.[7]. However, note that it only studies the commitment at 2x and 4x CO2, not the commitment yet to be realized in the current climate. That is what the new studies fill in. This is not a criticism of Stouffer and Manabe, because they were more interested in the thermohaline circulation, and not specifically in the calculation of climate sensitivity. Apparently the IPCC panel chose to use their study for this unplanned purpose. From the description of the Stouffer and Manabe study, it appears that it would be incorrect to use it to calculate climate sensitivity, because they don't first make long runs to achieve equilibrium at current climate forcings, so the climate sensitivities that IPCC derives are not really for CO2 doubling from the current values, but include some of the unrealized commitment from current greenhouse gas and solar forcings.

In a sense, the new climate commitment curves need to be subtracted from the Stouffer and Manabe curves, to get the climate sensitivity figures for the particular models. The "effective" climate sensitivities" that are used to make the IPCC predictions are also subject to other uncertainties and errors. For instance, here is the caveat from IPCC

• "If effective climate sensitivity varies with climate state, estimates of climate sensitivity made from a transient simulation may not reflect the ultimate warming the system will undergo. The use of a constant climate sensitivity in simple models will lead to inconsistencies which depend on the value of sensitivity chosen. This feature deserves further study."[8]

Note that here, IPCC seems to be making the erroneous attribution of all unrealized climate commitment to greenhouse emissions, when in fact some of it may be due to commitment from solar forcing.

• "In order to make projections of future climate, models incorporate past, as well as future emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Hence, they include estimates of warming to date and the commitment to future warming from past emissions."[9]

Models tuned to the past surface warming data, without knowing the amount of unrealized commitment already in the system, will attribute too much effect to greenhouse gas levels, and will demonstrate too much sensitivity to them.--Silverback 08:02, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

In your last paragraph, you stated a speculation as a conclusion. Kevin Baas^talk 22:43, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

The warming will be attributed to one of the forcings they apply and since the unrealized commitment is a warming, it is unlikely to be attributed to a cooling forcing such as a sulphate aerosol, and will be more likely to be attributed to a warming forcing such as greenhouse gasses. I don't have all the information, but more is known now than the IPCC had at the time of the third tar, so perhaps my conclusions are less speculative than theirs.--Silverback 04:40, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 12:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)) You're still misinterpreting things. All the commitment stuff means is that once you stop increasing CO2, the temperature continues to rise. Thats in IPCC 2001, and it was in IPCC 1995 as well (fig 6.17). You don't need millenial runs for this. Models tuned to the past surface warming data, without knowing the amount of unrealized commitment already in the system, will attribute too much effect to greenhouse gas levels is just wrong, because the models aren't tuned in the way you assert.

(William M. Connolley 15:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Anyway, Climate commitment studies already said the idea was nothing new; I've made it more explicit; talk there.

Yes, it was intuitively obvious that the oceans would take time to equilibrate, so it shouldn't have been new. But it was barely mentioned and studied even less in the IPCC reports. BTW, thanx for the new Stouffer reference on the Climate commitment studies page. Although it was in 2001, I guess it was after the TAR, since it isn't discussed in the text, although I haven't checked in the references.--Silverback 09:54, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] page move

I have reverted your move of the Anarchism article. Before you rename a major article, please make sure there is consensus to do so on the Talk page. Thanks. -- Viajero 12:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fear not, none of your precious edits have been lost; just look in the page history, i.e, [10] -- Viajero 12:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Left Anarchism

The left anarchism page is up for deletion by Che. You might want to vote to keep it: [11] Thanks. RJII 05:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] libertarianism

Take a look at the libertarianism page. I think you were right that I took too much out. I consolidated the discussion of redistribution and inequality in the property section with the discussion of the same issues in the economics section and put both in the economics section. If you don't like my wording, we can work something out like last time. I just thought I'd give you a heads-up. Dave (talk) 03:35, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

Could you please vote on the proposed move Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda → Alleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda? The vote is here . Thanks. ObsidianOrder 17:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You're back

You're back. Welcome. I've reverted the recent/2001 bit on GW - but don't worry - I'm limited to 1 R per day so you can outfight me if you want to. See the talk anyway. I'm pretty dubious about the +ve benefits of ozone but... what the hell. Have you looked at the simplified GW article yet? William M. Connolley 20:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Conspiring

Please see User_talk:El_C#Silverback. Cheers, Sam Spade 21:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Working poor

Hi, Silverback. I note that you reverted the work that I did on the working poor article. I tried to make it more neutral and relevant to other first world countries and more readable by improving the style and tone of the article. I also added what I consider relevant issues such as fuel poverty, precarious employment and targeted welfare assistance for the working poor that you have deleted. You also deleted references to work being done in other countries to research the plight of those in precarious employment and categories relevant to the subject matter of this article. I would be interested in why you believe the version I edited was more NPOV Tiles 05:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because the plight of the working poor has not been balanced by their responsibility for their own situation, through their values and choices, and furthermore there is too much emphasis on the misery of their situation, when in reality they have a standard of living only exceeded the the "nobility" and rulers for most of human history. Consider that most of the working poor can afford a VCR and TV. Only the ruling elite in Roman times could afford nightly dramatic entertainments. Consider also that whatever the complaints of the working poor about their status, ex post facto, most would make the same decisions that put them in a lower materialistic status again given the same situations. AND, they wouldn't necessarily be wrong. However, poorly they've done materialistically for instance, they may be society's winners if one measures them on a partying or sexual frequency scale. The article was making condescending, paternalistic judgements about people who made different choices, and compounded that with making excuses for why they didn't do better on some scale they may not even care about. I'd love to be able to speak foreign languages for instance, but I am unwilling to make any effort to learn them. People make choices all the time, and have unfulfilled desires that they were unwilling to pay the price to get, so perhaps they were not their highest priorities.--Silverback 05:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I now have a clear understanding of your views on the working poor. Tiles 05:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope that is true, it would be a credit to our skills of communication. Can you extrapolate the same principles to the comparative wealth of countries, the USA and France for instance?--Silverback 15:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FARC archive page

Please don't vote on the archive page of the |featured article removal candidates, a decision already has been made on the articles listed there. --Conti|✉ 21:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nominations are kept on the page for about two weeks. As the Iraqi insurgency nomination was quite undecided I kept it for another week and then moved it to the archive with no consensus reached (therefore it got kept as a featured article). There is currently some discussion to change the rules and maybe extend the time it is on WP:FARC at Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates. --Conti|✉ 21:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Castro

No request is necessary. As for the "one intransigent editor," I'd agree except that I don't know if you mean Trey Stone, 172, Davenbelle, or KapilTagore. I see little evidence on the talk page of a good faith attempt to resolve the content dispute. I do see political polemics and inveighing against Castro, which is unhelpful. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We aren't here to make value judgements. I'd also note that Trey Stone has a long history of being uncooperative and white-washing the actions of a certain conservative statesman. I hope you aren't trying to tell me that the problem with the Castro article is that it doesn't condemn him strongly enough. Finally, I care very little for the insinuation that I'm abusing my admin powers. Mackensen (talk) 13:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can only reiterate what I said above. We are suppose to write from a neutral perspective. That means we don't write the article from a libertarian perspective. I suggest reading WP:NPOV very, very carefully, because I don't think you understand it. We aren't here to decide if Castro "deserves" anything. I suggest you direct your energies towards finding consensus on the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the page was being hit with reverts from all over the place and it didn't seem to be going anywhere. Protecting seems logical under those conditions.Geni 14:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read this. Proteus (Talk) 14:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You "generally oppose page protection"? How nice for you. However, criticising Admins for doing things they are perfectly entitled to do simply because you think they shouldn't be able to do them is rather pointless. Try to change the policy if you disagree with it, but acting as if it doesn't exist isn't likely to get you anywhere. Proteus (Talk) 14:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's bordering on unacceptable, but it bears no resemblance to this situation and I'm struggling to see the revelance: the fact that powers can be abused doesn't not mean that they always are, which is what you seem to be implying here and which is manifestly not the case. The fact that an admin has protected a version of a page which you dislike does not mean either that they are corrupt or that they favour the protected version. Proteus (Talk) 14:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bad Habits

When have I ever taken sides before? This is the first time I have even taken up a page as such a major project. I posted notices in 3 different places. Fine, you've convinced me, I won't protect the page, but please watch what you're talking about. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 14:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No worries, prehaps you'd like to come over and help us? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design, Comments from A ghost

You wrote, "rv to Silverback, you deleted my comment AGAIN, be careful Ghost". It appears that you and I have run into the same problem with Edit Conflicts that I've seen crop up since the recent publish (Monday). I wasn't intentionally deleting your comment. Any more than you did mine. We're not getting Edit Conflict warnings like we used to. So our posts accidently reverted each other. I'll try to rebuild the chat.--ghost 28 June 2005 21:59 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

On June 28, Silverback alleged that Ilyanep, Shem, and myself engaged in collusion regarding which version of the Fox News article was to be placed under protection. Ilyanep had placed the article under protection on June 27 at the request of Shem and myself.

It seems to me that Silverback, by making these allegations, is in clear violation of the “Assume good faith” policy: WP:AGF. Silverback has failed to apply Hanlon's Razor, “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” Even if our actions regarding placing this page under protection were in violation of Wikipedia policy – an allegation that I deny – such violation could be explained by a lack of understanding on our part.

I request that Silverback retract his allegations that Ilyanep, Shem, and myself engaged in collusion regarding which version of the Fox News article was to be placed under protection, and that he apologize for making such allegations.

If he does this, then I will consider this dispute settled.

If he does not do this, then I would advise him to begin his own dispute resolution process regarding this alleged collusion. Meanwhile, I will go on to the next stage in the dispute, and put the dispute up for comments by the Wikipedia community at large. (Provided that one other person also attempts to resolve this dispute peacefully.) crazyeddie 29 June 2005 04:21 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is a guideline, actually, not a policy. But for the active misrepresentation Silverback has engaged in with regard to the events described both here and at Talk:FOX News, amongst other comments of his, I do believe Silverback to have violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks (which is a policy) several times against myself and other editors at FOX News. I would agree to a formal RfC if this is taken into account, unless Silverback would care to apologize and/or cease his interpersonal rhetoric. Shem^(talk) 29 June 2005 06:32 (UTC)

I already resolved the dispute with Crazyeddie, before he even went to all this trouble. I am surprised he has done this, what dispute remains?--Silverback June 29, 2005 13:41 (UTC)

Your exact words were: "I apologize to you Crazyeddie, the evidence isn't there for you.". I don't believe that this qualifies as a retraction of your allegations.

I've recently took a one day wikivacation to try to get a better perspective on this issue. I still believe that my request is reasonable.

I don't think I can be reasonably expected to negotiate with someone who thinks so little of me as to suggest I might be involved in such a lowlife scheme.

Contrawise, if we were involved in such a lowlife scheme, then Silverback should not be expected to negotiate with us. So, I think Silverback should carry out a dispute resolution process of his own, if he truly thinks we were involved in such a scheme. If successful, if the evidence backs him up, he could probably get the protection lifted, and possibly have all three of us removed from the discussion. Surely that would be to his liking? If he does initiate such a process, then I will consider my dispute with him settled - unless this process clears our names or is settled outside of RfC, and he persists in making these allegations.

If upon reflection, he realizes that the evidence does not back up his claims, then he should retract his allegations against all three of us and apologize for making them. If he does so, I will consider this dispute settled.

If he takes neither action, then I will be forced to begin a formal Request for Comment. crazyeddie 30 June 2005 18:35 (UTC)

Just in case my apology did not make it clear, I do retract my allegations against you. Your refusal to negotiate with me is nothing new, and I am not going to press you on that.--Silverback June 30, 2005 19:09 (UTC)

But you still haven't retracted your allegations against Shem and Ilyanep. Obviously, it would be strange if I filed a RfC on their behalf. But I can encourage them to file one, and cosign it if they do. As I said, if the evidence backs your account up, and you initiated a dispute resolution process, then you could probably have the protection lifted and perhaps have all three of us temporarily banned from editing the Fox News article. So why haven't you done so? So far, your accusations have earned you nothing but alienating an administrator who, given his admitted pro-Fox bias, had every reason to be on your side. You have also seriously annoyed two people (if not more) who were already not very happy with you. So why not retract your allegations and repair some of the damage you have done to your own reputation? crazyeddie 5 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm waiting for this to be resolved before continuing at FOX News, and hope he'll respond quickly. Shem^(talk) 22:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda → Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory - name change vote

Hello, there is a vote to rename Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory. The voting is here: Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda#poll on changing the name of this_page. I would appreciate it if you could vote. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 05:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia cliques

Hello - I noticed in your vote in the Felonius Monk RfA that you mentioned experiencing cliquish tendencies with this user and Slimvirgin at the Intelligent Design article. Just wanted to let you know that I've experienced almost an identical situation to yours twice before with Slimvirgin that involves an editor she's either closely aligned with or nominated for adminiship. This is a severe and growing problem on Wikipedia when administrators start elevating their buddies into positions of authority and using off-site backchannels to coordinate their work. Many times the purposes are less than forthright such as POV pushing and voting down RfC's when a member of one of the cliques violates WP policy. Don't know if you have any ideas on how to counter this sort of stuff other than to keep citing the policies and vote against these types when they come up for admin, but I'm interested in any suggestions. To date I've been doing everything I can to bring attention to this problem and to contact other editors who have experienced it. Best regards Rangerdude 07:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think "sunshine" is the minimum we can do. Shine light on or highlight the behavior in public places like we just did. Unfortunately, once they become admins they can develope a shameless hubris, like Slimvirgin has, and can only be gotten rid of for severe violations of policy, and usually not even then, because the arb committee seems to view adminship as a right rather than a privilege, and will only discipline for a month or so in most cases. Some have become part of an admin peer culture with an ethic of serving rather than abusing the community, these are usually apologetic when any instances of poor judgement come to light, although some seem to have those instances far too often.--Silverback 07:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. It's unfortunate that many of these administrators will turn a blind eye to one of their own when a clear policy violation happens. And hubris! You aren't kidding. Slimvirgin is one of the worst on this. A couple weeks ago I posted a complaint against one of her administrator buddies for repeatedly making a blatant disruptive POV edit to an article. The case was so outrageous it shouldn't have taken more than a few seconds to see who was in the wrong (her administrator buddy was adding completely extraneous David Duke quotes into an article in an attempt to taint the other sources in the article with the KKK). Several rational and objective editors saw this, agreed it was wrong, and went to work trying to get him to stop. Then Slimvirgin shows up and declares that she's friends with the problematic administrator and as such she knows he can do no wrong, no matter the evidence. In short order she also rounded up her clique through talk pages and the backchannels and they all showed up and voted down the complaint en masse without so much as a word addressing the evidence. A week later I run into her again and its the exact same thing. One of her editor buddies has an article here about his off-site identity and he got mad when sourced critical material about his politics was added to that article. So he posts a fit about it on the article page (in violation of WP:AUTO) and calls her in. In a matter of hours she's rounded up the exact same cabal to orchestrate the expunging of any criticism of her friend. A day later she starts undertaking the revision herself and guts any critical material. This was contested by myself and other editors on the talk page and accordingly reverted pending consensus. Next thing you know she starts a revert war, calls in the clique again to help with it, and the moment her contested revision is back another one of her administrator buddies protects the page. It's very frustrating to deal with people like that because they are plainly acting in bad faith and running the place to protect their own. To date I've identified 4 or 6 members of this little clique as well as some fellow travellers. The worst are Slimvirgin, Willmcw, Jayjg, and FeloniousMonk - 3 admins and one admin nominee! Rangerdude 20:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I am fond of the wiki philosophy, but it assumes most people are of good will, and will live or die on the validity of that assumption. wikipedia is further flawed by the lack of symmetry in the admin approval/removal process. Adminship should really be about service, not power or status. I don't think you should really take all the injustice personally. Just fight the good fight and if you lose, then wikipedia is probably getting what it deserves, it is a shame, but it is a weakness of democratic principles. You can build a franchise with reputation and authority, and then a mob can come in and steal it by mere numbers and "consensus". These parasites can live off it for awhile, but eventually they will destroy its value with their lack of integrity.--Silverback 20:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

The only way to fight a clique is with a clique. I'd tell you more, but you don't have email enabled (either of you ;) As far as the disclosure comment @ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk, people are allowed to communicate via IM, IRC, Email, phone calls, or whatever they may like. There is no way to stop that, or to force them to reveal their communications. The only thing you can do is a bit of trustbusting, which is certainly my intent.

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I know you are well intentioned. But I really do believe in doing everything in an open and transparent manner. I wish you the best of luck. I will lend a hand occassionally, if I see activity, and can in good conscience assist what is going on.--Silverback 22:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FeloniousMonk

FeloniousMonk is at it again with his effort to use his power as an admin to throw me User:Pravknight off Wikipedia because I have dared to question his interpretation of WP:V,WP:NPOV,WP:RS on the Paul Weyrich article. I have repeatedly pointed out the accusations provided by TheocracyWatch and the Yurica Report are unsourced, fail to clearly connect Weyrich' a Catholic with Dominion Theology. I have tried being conciliatory with FeloniusMonk and his cabal by offering better citations and attributions for their arguments to make them more encyclopedic. Each time FM and his clique revert to more partisan edits. I would appreciate your assistance with FM.--64.93.1.67 20:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Kennedy

The info has already been restored... =) happy editing and remember to smile. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 22:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanx, that looks like the ethical/neutral position.--Silverback 22:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Why Silverback, is this you colluding with an admin to protect a "correct" version of a disputed page? [12] Shem^(talk) 22:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It is hardly collusion. It is wikipedia policy to attempt to resolve a dispute directly with the admin before filing a grievance. I believe he has now resolved it in a neutral manner, according to the rules, before he hadn't. I welcome scrutiny, note, I don't archive my talk page, I leave an open and transparent trail, warts or not.--Silverback 22:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ted Kennedy

Because the consensus at the time of the removal was clearly against including the passage with JamesMLane, jpgordon, Kelly Martin and Robert McClenon all against it and only you and the anon IP supporting at that time. Again, I respect consensus and felt that it was heavily POVed and should be left out until a) it can be decided whether to include it or not and b) how to word it to not be so POV. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 02:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

not really, under WP:PPol:

Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy.

Again, I stated my reasons and my opinions on the matter, I believe it is way too POV to keep in there for now and either I upset you by removing it or I upset the others by removing and based on the arguments so far, it is in my judgement that it should stay out for now. I also think Kelly Martin and Robert McClenon have made there opinions explicidly clear on the issue. I see no point in arguing my actions of removing it further as, again, this is only until a NPOV section can be writtien if the content is to be included and the section was clearly POV. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 03:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kennedy Poll

Please give your vote on the talk page.[13]Voice of All(MTG) 03:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Insults, etc.

Inviting you to contribute to this discussion of insults, etc. of public figures in the Village Pump patsw 03:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design

Silverback, I think I have been fair and patient in waiting for you to show signs of cooperation.

I'd rather like to get back to editing the article. There are lots of things wrong with it and lots of improvements that could be made.

Thus far, you have shown a lot of rhetoric, but not even a token gesture to cooperate and assume good faith.

At this rate we will be on our way through dispute resolution. I'd rather avoid that.

To make this absolutely clear, I am not basing this request on disagreement with your opinions on ID. As has been pointed out by multiple people, we don't all agree 'round here.

You have to work with us. We have to work with you. Everyone of us had to work through out disagreements in order to work with eachtoher. Look at User:FuelWagon and User:Dbergan! They were at eachother's throat and now they're trading opinions on the nature of everything and wedding congratulations.

Show us a willingness to work together with us, cooperate, and assume good faith, and you will get slack in return.--Tznkai 14:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you haven't been fair. You've been condescending and playing to the crowd, engaged in ad hominen attacks, selectively invoking rules and you haven't been willing to work with me, as evidenced by your request the protection continue. I will recognize slack when I see it, you could have given me slack before the protection and didn't. I don't have a long memory or hold a grude, I will judge you by how you behave in the future.--Silverback 17:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have given you multiple places on the talk page to list your objections. Specific objections, general objections, etc to the article itself. So have others. If this is still about what you think I specificly am doing wrong, then we need to continue into dispute resolution.--Tznkai 17:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My edits, edit summaries and participation on the talk page speak for themselves. You've given me nothing, because it wasn't yours to give. You don't own the page.--Silverback 17:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I created a new section so everyone can be on the same page. I encourage you to help.--Tznkai 17:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dominionism

Our approaches to managing this vicious little article are quite different; but I want to work with, rather than against you. I fully approve of your call for documentatation. But I cannot support deleting material that is referenced, as the Diamond comment is. The difference between this article and a conspiracy theory is a thin technicality. Please help me to describe the credibility problems of this influential and spreading view, rather than using the article to explain your disagreement with it. Can I succeed in persuading you to join me in this approach? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I applaud your sentiment, but I'm not interested enough in dominionism to assist in documenting it. I think that should be left to people that think it can be documented. The mere fact that we have someone named Diamond to who we can attribute the statement that this extreme form of dominionism is "prevalent", doesn't seem to merit including such an incredible statement. I don't doubt that she THINKS she is seeing this view everywhere, perhaps even under her bed. But practically noone on the Christain right is EXPRESSING that view, so she must be reading their minds or something. Are you so interested in her contribution to smearing the Christian right with some extreme form dominionism that you are willing to read her book to see if she has documentation for her assertions? She is going way beyond the other critics, who at least expanded dominionism to the "soft" form, so they could apply the term to the Christian right.

If Dominionism is claiming to be legit sociology, perhaps we should insist on peer reviewed journal articles as sources. Hopefully, they would at least be required to define what they mean by the term "prevalent" and their methodology for measuring it.

Strangely the other text I objected to that talks about persecution, is stark contrast to the Diamond material, because it is a completely different motivation than the extreme dominionism that Diamond says is so prevalent, in fact, it isn't even dominionism, so why is it even there. Given that it wasn't dominionism, the Schaefer material no longer applied. How could an alliance between persecution-complex, non-dominionist Christians with moonies and mormons, be a co-beligerancy that Schaefer advocated for dominionists? I think we give this material credibility it hasn't earned by including it. Consider the persecution motivation information, by including it in a dominionism article, aren't we asserting that belongs in there somehow, that it is or is somehow closely related to dominionism?

I am willing to justify my edits, as I have here. But, I prefer to invest my time in more rigorous and challenging material that can stand some scrutiny. Why do you want to put in material just because it is referencable? What if Diamond was saying something equally incredible but more tangible that you had never heard elsewhere before, such as "the view that wife beating is good exercise is prevalent in the Christian right", wouldn't you require better evidence before allowing it in?--Silverback 18:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not whether I would quote Diamond; in my opinion all that matters is whether Diamond is quoted, and by whom she is quoted. I do agree with you, that the quote was illogically placed as far as the thesis of the article was concerned. On the other hand, I think that she was quoted accurately, and in an appropriate context, because she does seem to conflate, or at leas insinuate covert influence, from Reconstructionism to the Rutherford Institute, the Christian Coalition, etc.

The point being made by the persecution text, was that these theocratic ideas, to which they allude and which are (they generously assume) distasteful to the average American, are gaining entrance into the "mainstream" by playing on common fears. This sort of gateway theory is a key element of any effective conspiracy theory, to explain how so many ordinary folk can tolerate or unconsciously propagate radical ideas. It is a key ingredient to the view - if you lack evidence that the "playing on evangelical feelings of marginalization" theme is real, I would appreciate it if you would call for documentation instead of deleting the material. Leaving the {{fact}} marker at the appropriate places in the article is good preparation for a cleanup call, later on. If you dispute a claim, leave a note in the Talk and mark the dispute in the text, with {{disputed}} tag. It is not a matter of this material being "credible" in an academic sense. It is believed in a political sense - and that is what makes it important. Document its importance, as well as its credibility, and it will be a stronger article instead of a weaker one. Please reconsider your significant deletions of material. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The second component of the link that you described wasn't made in the text that I deleted. Yes, they got into the Christian Right because of the feelings of persecution, but that just means they got into some issues and party politics. It isn't like once there they get indoctrinated with dominionism. There was nothing in the text to indicate that dominionism was even mentioned. So a whole "gateway" that you state is a key element of a conspiracy theory is missing. These people got into the Christian right not dominionism, and then were not even introduced to dominionism, at least, the text in the article is completely silent in this regard. Or are the non-dominionism-aware Christians, also co-beligerants?--Silverback 19:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

That's the whole idea of the theory, as far as I can tell. The notion is that people influenced aren't aware of where this influence is coming from. When Pat Robertson distributed a pamphlet that advised, "Rule the world for God", what do you suppose that means to people who are afraid of theocracy? When James Dobson or Paul Weyrich encourage Christians to infiltrate the government and to make their influence felt to prevent America's further loss of family values and decency, what do you suppose that means to someone who believes that Dominionism is a plot to take over the government for Jesus, by stealth and deception? This isn't a far-fetched portrayal of the theory - it is easy to see and to understand. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see these documented on the Christian right or the dominionism pages, and a couple statements do not make it "prevalent" even for the persons who made the statements. Perhaps the dominionism page should be moved to Possible hints of dominionism.--Silverback 06:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lancet

I think the confidence interval should definitely be included. I didn't mean to revert to a version that didn't include it. (I was objecting to the removal of "To date this has been the only serious scientific attempt to estimate the excess mortality as a result of the invasion.") Sorry, I'll put the confidence interval back in. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 21:07, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I worked at a compromise version that clearly includes the confidence interval. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 22:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Pages

Regardless of whether the attacks happened, they don't belong on an article talk page. This is not hte place for them. I'm simply trying to restore some order to this page. WIthout some compromise and some give on everyone's part, this article will stay in permanent lockdown with only admins being allowed to edit it. This situation really just needs to move on and the article talk pages need to be used for what they are supposed to be used for -- discussing the article, not users. - Sleepnomore 01:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

You are right that they don't belong in the archives either, but its a better place than there. They may have happened, and there may be more expressive attacks on other pages, but right now I've made it a point to try to dull this particular page down. Since you've been here for a while, perhaps you could help tone down the rhetoric by simply letting these things die down now instead of later. New users don't need to be pulled into this argument. There are enough people pulled into the hole already. Just let it go, please. This isn't worth arguing over. - Sleepnomore 01:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• • Naw. I'm not trying to cover up. I'm trying to clean up. In fact, I'm sort of an inpartial outsider (I say sort of because I did vote in the page to leave the rhetoric out and stick to the facts). I saw this page was high on creating RfC's on the RfC page, so I came to try and help out. The RfC's can point to the history of the errors. They don't need to point to the current version. You can admit the attacks don't belong, so lets leave them out. There is no need to keep perpetuating the problem by leaving the attacks there for new users to pick up. Can we please just not get into a revert war on this and try to settle this down? Most of the people on this page are adults. I'm just trying to get everyone to act like it. I know its hard when discussing politics, but it can be done. Everyone can talk with a civil tongue. -Sleepnomore 01:34, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I can understand how you think this is censorship, but it is not. Its asking you to keep the conversations in their appropriate place. You can say whatever you want, and even personal attacks will most likely be more acceptable (although still against policy) on talk pages. Once again, all I'm asking for is that you keep the personal discussion where it belongs -- not that you stop discussing it. - Sleepnomore 01:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Why does this all have to become a personal attack? I have nothing to do with this argument. I'm not out to get anyone. So why are you attacking me? I know its a hot situation, but this isn't neccessary. - Sleepnomore 02:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• There are exceptions to the 3RR rule which allow you to revert regardless. One of these instances is vandalism. Removing comments is allowed when it involves personal attacks. Additionally, a guidelines is provided which actually encourages removal of personal attacks. Please see the following:
  • Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks
  • WP:RPA

For this reason, I am continuing to revert personal attacks on the pages. I still don't understand why you feel the need to keep personal attacks in public view and to drag others into it. This seems counter-productive to Wikipedia. Am I missing a point that you were trying to make? I honestly do understand that you don't think its fair or that you feel its censorship, but in context, it doesn't belong on article talk pages (which you have already agreed is the case) and it serves no productive purpose that I can see. - Sleepnomore 03:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• You are right. There is a lot more that could be deleted. I was doing my best to be less intrusive. I've moved RfC content and archived older personal attacks. I am intending to remove more personal attacks as time permits. You are welcome, obviously, to try to clean some of these personal attacks up yourself, but please try to keep it neutral. I'm definitely hoping to get more people involved in neutralizing this situation. - Sleepnomore 05:55, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] erasing a 3RR notice??

What are your reasons for having erased another 3rr notice from that noticeboard, located just before yours?? 217.140.193.123 09:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If I did so, it was an accident and I can give no reasons, I think it must have been an edit conflict, although the system didn't report one. The software has been doing that lately. If you know how to use the history, you may be able to recover your edit.--Silverback 09:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

A review of the history shows that I was editing the "Report new violation", section, not the section with your 3RR report, so it is a mystery why yours disappeared. It should have been a different section.--Silverback 10:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Truly Amazed

I'm truly amazed at how poorly you handled this situation. Despite my best efforts to difuse the situation, you've obviously held onto the hatred for your fellow Wikipedia users. Perhaps hatred is the only thing you have left to hold onto in this world. I will not "defend" my position on your device attempt to report me on the 3RR. I'm sure my actions speak well enough by themselves to have me acquitted. I'm sincerely disappointed in you and do hope that at some point you can drop the non-sense going on in article talk pages long enough that editing can continue. Otherwise, you are in for an uphill climb with your hatred. - Sleepnomore 15:11, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

You are jumping to conclusions, extrapolating beyond the evidence and painting with a rather broad brush without doing your homework.--Silverback 18:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Please wait until a consensus is among the contributors. It's very unproductive to revert the article after every remark on the talk page, especially not if the remark doesn't even seem to care about what has been discussed so far. Saying you disagree is not really a sign of consensus. The discussion has been on-topic and seems to be quick to come to a conclusion based on consensus. Please be patient. NightBeAsT 09:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

What page are you talking about?--Silverback 09:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I now see which page it is. You should be able to see from my edit summary, and from my comments on the talk page, that not only do I disagree that the intro needs to summarize the whole article, but I also believe that the intro that has been substituted is incorrect both in fact and in emphasis.--Silverback 09:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

There are four other persons involved in the discussion, not only you. Those four persons can brag about partial agreement while your comments have no reception until now except for mine. None of these persons made changes until the others approved of them in the discussion, and I think it should go on like this. To be honest I do not think many will agree that the intro should not be a summary. (Also please don't forget about the three-revert-rule by the way. It's your third revert within 24h) NightBeAsT 09:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sleepnomore

Feel free to request that he be blocked for it - I didn't notice that he had previously been warned. It would improper for me to do it myself, though, considering my involvement here. Ambi 06:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've given up arguing with this guy. I still don't understand why he thinks that his actions were warranted. [14]Voice of All(MTG) 02:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy doesn't understand why you continue to attack someone who obviously acted in good faith and you know it. Other than the fact that you have attacked anyone who even slightly agrees with you, this is completely unwarranted. - Sleepnomore 21:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It'd be easier for us to assume your good faith if you hadn't carefully erased all traces of a previous 3RR warning. -Willmcw 22:54, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by errasing all traces of the 3RR warning? I believe its still on the 3RR notice board? - Sleepnomore 15:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Correction: removed all traces from your talk page. -Willmcw 18:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I see. I wasn't aware that I had to conform to your rules for archiving my own talk page. Could you please tell me how you like it done in the future so I don't offend you once again? - Sleepnomore 02:36, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I don't delete stuff from my talk page, although I would probably make exceptions for obsenity or vulgarity. I thought it interesting that not only did you remove the talk page but the link to the archive of it.--Silverback 05:33, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] talkheader

I added the talkheader to some talk pages. BTW, this is not a Denial-of-service attack. --ThomasK 10:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

It is not.

Quotes:

• This template is designed to be used on any talk page, to provide
• a short introduction and appropriate links for newcomers,
• a reminder of policy to experienced Wikipedians everytime they visit the page.

It is suggested that it is placed on an ad hoc basis on any talk pages where its content may be useful. It has also been proposed that the template would be most useful if it appeared automatically at the top of every page. (This would presumably require a software change.) Rd232 15:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Read further: Template talk:Talkheader and respond here. --ThomasK 10:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I added the talkheader to some not all talk pages. I placed it on talk pages where it is useful. From my side this discussion is now closed. --ThomasK 11:03, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Are you bored? I vandalized no talk pages. You are also not an administrator. Be quite and continue your contributions to Wikipedia.--ThomasK 11:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina edits

Is the POV issue you posted the flag about only concerning the anti-corporatism tone, or was there more to it? Curious about what you were referring to. Thanks for taking the time for cleanup, by the way. Deadsalmon 10:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Whoops, on the Shiavo featured article vote.

Here's the post from my page in italics:

It appears that I mistakenly edited the Boris Blue vote, when I changed my vote to neutral. I also evidently did not know how to properly strike my old vote. Do you know how to fix this? Apologies. --Silverback 19:46, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry: I recall someone, probably BorisBlue himself, fixing your error. When you reply to my message, letting me know you got it, you can look at my code, when you bring up the edit dialogue here, and notice that this is the way to strike out something. You use this format:

• • The sentence, but it has something that is <s>out of date, and you want to strike this out</s>, so you use an "s" code in the side-ways V's, that is, the less-than and greater-than "bent brackets," and use a "slash s" to close it.

OK, I've take photos at the Sylvan Abbey, where Theresa Schiavo was burried, as well as when I made a stop by at the "infamous" Woodside Hopsice, on my way back to my home planet of Lakeland, Florida, and I am busy posting photos that are not "fair use," so I gotta go for now. Hope this helps...--GordonWattsDotCom 16:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: including links to external pages

In general, wikipedia policy is to include external links only when they are particularly valuable or serve as a direct source for something asserted in the article. One of the major reasons is that allowing random links clutters the page and attracts additional spam; wikipedia is (famously) WP:NOT a web directory.

I don't want to get into revert wars over something as trivial as including personal diaries on the homeschooling page, but I thought I should drop you a note about this. Sdedeo 22:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of room for discretion in the language there, for instance the article is not a "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories". And there are not "excessive lists". Most of the links there are good, and I think the rather mundane scottish site, is particularly interesting to American readers who are not familiar with homeschooling in other countries. Kelley was deleting this one to make a point about the deletion of her link, so I restored her link, even though I don't think it is very good. Frankly, I couldn't figure it out, because so many ads flash at you. No, I don't think hers is a commercial site, so is not objectionable for that reason, she just has those google ad links in there, that point to useful homeschooling materials. Even though I am a firm believer, that we should have lower standards for external links than seems to be the norm, if nearly ANY readers might find them useful, I have no objection to deleting her link in a couple weeks. I feel committed to defending it until then, because I advocated this lower standard to her. If she organized her front page better, so that it was easier to see what her page was about, and perhaps she put the ads on secondary pages, her site might even be worth keeping longer. Now if you are insistent upon getting rid of it, I will revert war with you for awhile (no more than two reverts per day for three or four days), and then gradually succumb to your "viscious" persistance. It is really the scottish site that I am protecting.--Silverback 23:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hee hee, it's not such a big deal for me. But don't be surprised if people keep trying to delete some of those links when they come across them! All the best, Sdedeo 23:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute advice needed

I have expanded and improved Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda article considerably. My goal is to get the "Disputed" label removed. However, I have had an entry on Able Danger deleted several times by people claiming it is not relevant to the article. I have expanded the entry over time to make it more clear and show the relevance to the article and I have explained the relevance on the Talk page. Still it is deleted. I have viewed their deletions as simple vandalism and not subject to the 3RR but an administrator did not agree and suspended me for an hour. If you can find the time, I would like you to read the entry and the talk section on "Able Danger" (it is discussed in more than one place). I would appreciate hearing your point of view on the relevance of the entry on the Talk page and any advice you can give me on my User Talk page. Can people just claim information they do not like is irrelevant and delete it? RonCram 13:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, please drop me an email at roncram2004@yahoo.com. Thanks! RonCram 15:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Page

Why did you change my user page to read "proceeding my undergraduate studies" to "preceeding [sic]..."? You misspelled "preceding" and made the entire sentence regarding the timeline of my research false. Granted, "proceeding" is not the correct word to use there, but please do not make edits to my user page. Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• No worries man, it's a small slight and you were only trying to be helpful, which I appreciate. I hadn't noticed the nonsense of my word choice. In the end, your intervention resulted in a net gain, so I can't complain. Cheers! Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] your intransigence on Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda

I implore you to stop maliciously engaging in an edit war on this page. Your edits today are beyond the pale - you deleted 90% of the timeline and your explanation was ludicrous. I am contacting you to ask you to follow Wikipedia etiquette and discuss changes clearly in talk. Discussing them clearly means engaging the other editors, not just repeating yourself and stomping your foot. --csloat 20:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Quit mischaracterizing my contributions, and assume good faith, and try to understand my thorough postings on the talk page as well as my edit summaries.--Silverback 20:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said there, I am trying to assume good faith but your conduct constantly suggests you have other motives than helping to provide accurate entries. Your postings on talk and your edit summaries are not "thorough"; they are misleading and you constantly repeat yourself without responding to arguments against the points you repeat.csloat 20:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What you are saying would be true if your arguments were important. But for them to be important they would have to be on topic. The few arguments you make that are on topic, aren't arguments at all, but mere assertions or weak analogies. Try using reason instead of mere bluster. Be sure to also read the edit summaries.--Silverback 23:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You're just wrong, and I suspect you know it. As can obviously be seen by anyone actually reading the talk page there, or the edit summaries.--csloat 23:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You're just wrong, and I suspect you don't know it, given that you can't keep your focus on the subject matter, and take things so personally, as demonstrated by posts here and on that talk page.--Silverback 23:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] iraq invasion edits

I would prefer that you comment in the talk category on the page before reverting the introduction. It was rewritten for many reasons, the most glaring of which are the excessive use of the passive voice, as well as the author's use of other vague language. Simply put, the version you reverted to is unacceptable for use in an encyclopedia. I had suggested the revised introduction and recieved good feedback from several users. Yes, it does need minor edits for language and is a bit long, etc... but it was a quick fix to an obvious problem. I do agree with some of the edits you made when revising it and will incorporate those. I'd be happy to continue this discussion, but in the meantime I am going to revert the page to a half-way state. I did not intend to use hyperbole when writing the paragraphs, and don't really think much is there. ~(ImagoDei 08:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] more conduct issues

As I noted on Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, you violated the 3RR knowingly. Now I see you have deleted another user's contribution to your talk page rather than actually respond to his questions. I again implore you to cease the disruptive conduct.--csloat 19:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You are both lying and jumping to conclusions.--Silverback 19:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, might I say, that I am really looking forward to working closely with you on this article. I'm sure I can learn a lot about congeniality, good faith, and consensus building from you. Btw, I'm well aware of the proper archive process; some, it seems, are not. The suggestion to copy a few recent topics over is merely a convenience, not an integral part. In essence, you have for a brief time two live talk pages. Now, I can see how that might confuse some people, but it's really not such a difficult concept. See you around, big guy. Derex 19:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That is better. -- thanx,--Silverback 19:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neoconservatism in the United States

I see you've done some editing in the Neoconservatism in the United States article...do you adhere to the rabid anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli hate mongering I see there? If not, that article needs a lot of help.--MONGO 02:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop deleting sections wholesale

I have moved the section in Iraq War to the talk page after your repeated deletions despite reverts from various users. If you consider it is more appropriate elsewhere, please move it to whichever article you think it is relevant to (UK action in Iraq under Operation Telic perhaps - it has been suggested already in discussion of your actions on the talk page). If you consider that the content is not relevant to Wikipedia at all (and if so, I strongly disagree), please move deleted content to the talk page and take note of the views of others rather than just hacking information out of articles. You have removed not just one or two words or sentences but an entire section. Comments up-page here suggest your approach is not isolated to this one instance. 195.157.197.108 10:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I explained my actions there, and there is no obligation to move the material to the talk page, in fact that would be wasteful. When you gain more experience, you will realize that you can recover the material by editing an earlier version of the page accessible from the history, when you find a proper place for it. Unless those news items end up having longer term significance, they have no place in wikipedia, perhaps there are wiki sites that are more news oriented, where that material would be appropriate.--Silverback 17:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems you are big on criticising other users' lack of experience. It's not a strong argument. As I've pointed out before, calling yourself Silverback does not make you grizzled and respected here and your wish to be judged on the merit of your contributions seems to be backfiring. In any case, a pissing contest with respect to Wikipedia experience is not the issue. I'm fully aware that material can be recovered by rolling back your deletions via the history page and have done so several times, as have other users. What is not clear from the history page is the amount of information you have removed. That is a problem. I'm suggesting you take a slightly less gung-ho approach in your deletions. Where you intend to cut a large amount from an article, the constructive approach is to suggest your intended deletion on the talk page and seek a consensus. That is not hard to do but you have consistently avoided that route. By repeatedly cutting despite various reverts, you have been ignoring other users' opinions. Wikipedia is not your baby - it is a shared resource that we all contribute to. I'm suggesting you tread a little more lightly here. 195.157.197.108 10:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You should try to understand, that wikipedia's purpose is encyclopedic and not to be a news summary service. I meant exactly what I stated about judging my posts on their merits. It should not matter that I have a respect inspiring name, or even a sterling reputation, each additional post should be judged on its merits, although, like all users, I am entitled to a presumption of good faith. Apologies, however, I should not have attributed your post to a lack of experience rather than misunderstanding. --Silverback 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In other peoples' words...

Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.[15]

If something has any valid reason for being encyclopedic then it is. It may fail three relevant tests and pass only one. It's in on the strength of that one.[16]

Brief overviews can become detailed treatises (although they should still start with a brief overview).

The general recommendation is to just write time objectively. As a result, Wikipedians don't write, "today" or "recently" (even moreso than paper encylopedia writers); they write absolute times when times are necessary and don't mention time at all when it isn't necessary.

Wikipedia can very quickly have a page on any hot topic that people may suddenly find interesting (provided it is not completely ephemeral). If something important happens in, say, East Timor, then Wikipedians can create an article for East Timor or, if one exists, update the article and put it on Wikipedia's main page.[17]

Be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories.[18]

A piece of content may be written poorly, yet still have a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away. If the material seems miscategorized or out of place, consider moving the wayward material to another page, or creating a new page for it. If all else fails, and you can't resist removing a good chunk of content, it's usually best to move it to the article's "Talk page", which can be accessed using the "discussion" button at the top of each page. The author of the text once thought it valuable, so it is polite to preserve it for later discussion.[19]

There's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith.[20]

New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience - nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism.[21]

Best wishes for your future contributions. 195.157.197.108 10:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanx.--Silverback 10:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World view quiz

Hi SB,

I took the same quiz, and was a bit surprised at the result. I find it interesting to contrast your results with mine (given that we disagree a lot, but seem to get a long reasonably well). BTW, I certainly expected to come out materialist.

You scored as Existentialist. Existentialism emphasizes human capability. There is no greater power interfering with life and thus it is up to us to make things happen. Sometimes considered a negative and depressing world view, your optimism towards human accomplishment is immense. Mankind is condemned to be free and must accept the responsibility. Existentialist 63% Modernist 50% Cultural Creative 44% Materialist 44% Postmodernist 38% Idealist 38% Romanticist 31% Fundamentalist 19% What is Your World View? (updated) created with QuizFarm.com

--Stephan Schulz 09:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I found myself wondering if the bottom of the scale wasn't just as informative as the top, with middle a rather uninformative jumble. My bottom was postmodern, which I tend to react rather strongly to, because I see it as anti-rational, and thus lacking a critical skepticism towards what I characterize as reactionary peer-dependent "progressivism"/collectivism, which I view as a religious faith, as irrational and baseless as the Christianity that they are so hostile to. Thanx for sharing. I found the test interesting and informative, although probably not as rigorous as it might be. I think there would be some correlation with the 16 temperaments of the Keirsey and Myers-Briggs scales, which is more rigorous and with some scientific backing, but also difficult to interpret. I test as an ENTP on that scale, with the T and P particularly strong.--Silverback 10:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed about the top/bottom thing. I've taken Myers/Briggs type tests before, and end up either ENTP or INTP (with strong NT), depending on the time of day, position of the stars, and exact details of the test.--Stephan Schulz 10:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at your results, I think your modernist postmodernest contrast is not quite as strong as mine and that weakened your materialist/rationalist score.--Silverback 10:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I definitely see post-modernism more positive than you. While I don't care about the irrational aspects ("I don't understand it, so it has to be wrong. All Hail alternative medzine/Creationism/spiritual dancing/...") I see a lot of value in looking at things from many perspectives, and in a certain degree of relativism. --Stephan Schulz 10:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe the "exististialism" in my case is registering nihilism, but in my case that is more an intellectual position. While my intellect didn't force me to select any other values, and enjoyed questioning all values, I didn't settle on relativism. I found I was quite fond of those values I was both raised with and developed on my intellectual journey to nihilism. I value freedom, knowledge (especially scientific), family and progress. That is part of the reason the ENTP description when I tested that way and read it, really rang a bell. It is tough to end up a central planner commie collectivist when "On the other hand they have less and less desire, if they ever had any, to direct the activities of others, doing so only when forced to by circumstances." The internet only captures a small part of the description, even the much greater detail in the books seemed to fit me like a glove. It was a bit of a blow to my sense of uniqueness, to have one of only 16 types capture my self-identity so completely. I felt some affinity with the INTP description, but the other descriptions were quite alien. Of course there has to be more than 16 types of people in the world. But the alienness of the other descriptions, that others were also identifying with whole heartedly, as I did with the ENTP, made me think that there is more to this than the pablum that one gets in the astrology descriptions. Still I was surprised at how little of this makes sense scientifically. The wikipedia article does a good job of assessing that.

While ENTP seems to capture a lot of my inner life, it doesn't take much reflection to realize there is a lot it doesn't capture, such as my love of children, my fondness for and aspiration to integrity, my sports preferences, etc.--Silverback 15:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfU

I've toned down your comments there. If you want to change them back, go ahead, but it would be a mistake.
brenneman^(t)(c) 07:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your sentiment and intent. When someone is lying, I'm not afraid to say it, because he was calling me a liar by contradicting me by saying the articles were exactly they same when I had pointed out the differences. You forget that people assume good faith around here, so they might rely upon his characterization.--Silverback 08:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King Bush

Hey Silverback, hey do you still peddle that Bush is a great moral character stuff these days? What do you make of his threat to veto that bill that explicitly condemns torture? Sullivan puts it nicely I think: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002470.html Christiaan 22:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC) Christiaan

I've been following the debate. It would be embarrassing for him to veto that and even worse that it is his first veto. I never thought Bush was perfect, anyone who would presume to impose his will on others, whether via conscription, taxes, FDA regulations, central planning, etc. is morally flawed. I see no particular reason to single out Bush within this milleau of seedy characters, Bush should get no more than his share of the blame. His Iraq war was much more moral than his fathers, Clintons, or even his own Afghan war. The blame for the mess in Iraq now should be put sqarely on the insurgents and the Bathist remnants. --Silverback 22:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You and I both know that the Iraq War rests on the shoulders of all those who voted "yea" to authorize the use of force (ie: H. Clinton and Kerry), but I don't see Cindy Sheehan camping out in New York State in front of Hilliary's homestead. I never considered it Bush's war and know you don't either. Also, you may want to cool things off with 172...just a piece of friendly advice, not that you were asking.--MONGO 02:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfU again

Hi, Silverback. I've removed (conservatively) some personal attacks by you on User:172 from VfU. I can't believe you would in a cooler moment justify posting this kind of talk about "how you probably behave in the rest of your life" here on Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest you stop making attacks, and when you try to defend yourself, to NOT ADD MORE ATTACKS. I know many an admin unafraid of blocking for such attacks, as frankly, you're disrupting the wiki. Personal attacks are not to be tolerated. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 04:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding the {{dubious}} templates to the VfU discussion. VfU isn't a Request for Arbitration, nor a battleground. If you feel so strongly about the conduct of 172, file an RFAr against him, but stop disrupting the undeletion process. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It is done.--Silverback 05:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

And you did it again. Yes, I do have a problem with you inserting them, because I'm trying to keep things civil there. So I'd appreciate it if you removed them yourself. As I said, the diffs will show what you said if you went for arbitration against him, so the templates are completely unnecessary. What do you win adding them? You're irritating other editors, so if I were you I'd cease and desist. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Just ask for the RFAr to be reopened. But by adding the template, you're baiting him to attack you again, and it will go on and on until someone blocks both of you for disruption. Please stop the flame war. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it was fair of them to riddle my comments with "personal attack" labels. That is a characterization of them which is a personal attack on me. I felt I was being responsible by putting the dubious labels on them, instead of restoring the comments. If the comments were restored, then of course the readers could make their own assessments. By disputing them, it will be easier for the readers to see which characterizations I consider unfairly labeled personal attacks when they do a difference on the page, and we avoid a revert war with them deleting the comments and me restoring them. The ^{[dubious – discuss]} label appears to have been properly applied here and followed up on the talk page--Silverback 05:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The {{dubious}} and {{disputed}} templates are for articles and facts, not user conduct. If you don't want to open an RFAr, then I suggest RFM. Is it fair or not? I don't know, but you're letting go the opportunity to claim the high moral ground. I insist, take them out, it'll be better for you in the long run. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback...cease fire man.--MONGO 05:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm done. -- thanx, --Silverback 05:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• As an innocent bystander, it is my advice to you to stay away from articles in which you may become confrontational or in which you may write something you end up regreting, at least for awhile. A quick reference here, shows that efforts are being made to ensure things don't spiral out of control. Consider this my advice or else you may end up dealing with a partial ban. I also think some apologies are in order to 172, even if you don't think you have to.--MONGO 19:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your efforts to tone down the situation. As I understand it, the situation at the site you mention doesn't appear serious to me, but at worst it looks like a possible ARBCOM thing, and 172 has too much easily documentable baggage for that, although a surrogate may try something on his behalf. Since their "charges" would involve interactions between him and I, there would be a chance to fully air all his past behavior that he escaped from before. The stuff at the incident site was more of a concern, because there with a little admin shopping, it is possible to get a block or something slapped on someone after just listening to one side without full consideration of the evidence or a chance to respond. In a fair process I have nothing to fair. All I ask of you or any admin is to keep it fair, and make sure proper notice is posted on my page so I can respond before any action is taken. Since we are out of the heated moment, there certainly is no excuse for any action without me having a chance to respond.--Silverback 22:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Silver, I've had a long, good look at the accusations against you as well as your general editing behavior, and I see very little that could possible excuse any of it. Your edit warring combined with the frustratingly elusive and extremely uncooperative way you tend to discuss with other editors is reason enough to earn you a stern warning in the form of probation. But what makes me feel that you should actually get a pretty long ban is the way you've treated El C and above all 172. Making utterly off-topic accusations in the form of deeply insulting political guilt-by-association is completely unexcusable. That you would even think to get away with any of this because 172 has "baggage" makes me feel you're not going to respect the notions of civility unless you're threatened by some sort of discplining. Unless you take the 24 ban that Redwolf gave you as a way to cool down and start showing proper respect towards your fellow Wikipedians, I don't see any reason why a nice, long ban wouldn't be well-deserved. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Peter, I didn't know that I could edit my talk page during a block. So I responded via wikien-l email list. I copy here in case you are not on that list.

I apologize, I probably should have said that "wikipedia has baggage in dealing with 172". However, you don't provide any evidence of your characterizations.

Ask yourself why, you are considering a long ban, for "off-topic accusations in the form of insulting political guilt by association." Considering the amount of personal attacks, name calling and vitriol on wikipedia, I am being singled out for a few comments in one running battle with 172.

Note, I am not condemning wikipedia as a whole, the quantity of these occurances can be large, but the percentage managable because wikipedia has become quite large. I admit that I look for connections and underlying principles, and my focus in my degree in philosophy was basicly anti-marxism.

But it does not take a stretch of the imagination to see the relation to someone who disrupted the vote for deletion of "Category: totalitarian dicatators", and who routinely battles against negative information on Fidel Castro, Khruschev, etc. as a POV warrior. Except that instead of just calling him a POV warrior, I actually label what that POV is, by referring to him as an "apologist for dictators". There is no way this particular "personal attack" can be considered off topic. Given all the personal attacks on wikipedia, with people getting mild or no rebukes for dozens, is that theirs were just heated emotional outbursts instead of carefully considered and apropo labels.

It is interesting that you label my editing warring as "frustratingly elusive", of course, you could have said "patient and clever" just as easily. Perhaps you just pass territorial editors by and concede articles.

While I am sure that comment relates to my editing with csloat on Saddam and al Qaeda, it is also appropriate to the 172 behavior. Marxism is purposely frustratingly elusive and deceptive. Calling dictatorships and oligarchies "peoples republics" or "dictatorships of the proletariat", and if for some reason these terrible transitional means of getting to the ends that justify them, i.e. the nirvana of the stateless classless, communally held property society, then they still are not called totalitarian dictatorships, but instead "permanent proletarian revolutions", or are said to be in a "permanent revolutionary state".

Current "progressives" openly embrace mass-action "democracy" as a form of disrupting events through mob behavior by a small minority willing to misbehave under the cloak of anonymity. Marxist influence on our culture has been considerable is probably partially responsible for the postmodern denial of truth and morality that is so popular among the weak minded. 172 harkens to this when he argues for deletion of totalitarian dictator, because there is NO WAY it can be NPOV. However, as we do in science, it can be defined for out purposes, and then applied to factual circumstance, if we are intellectually honest and really do have "good faith". The reality is that 172 does not want it to be NPOV, it is too dangerous and possible true a term.

I am trying to keep this brief, but rest assured, provide sufficient evidence that he is an apologist for dictators.

Given this, and your statement that I made "off-topic" accusations, I believe we come down to you proposing a "long ban" for only two concepts that I put forward, one is the speculation that 172s line crossing behavior may carry forward into his personal life, and the other is that his line crossing behavior may be due to the cloak of anonymity, and not translate to his personal life where he may actually be a milquetoast.

Yes, negative characterizations that hit close to home "hurt", so don't assert that these were "off-topic", I am being persecuted because, my comparatively miniscule number of "offenses" were too close to the truth.

So, what is wikipedia's baggage in relation to 172? The arbcom gave him only a mild rebuke for his first abuse of admin powers, the arbcom did not review his second even more serious abuse of admin powers, because he "left", although it did shutdown his admin powers and not restore them despite his defiant and unapologetic protest, and then wikipedia just winked at his disruption of the VfD on the totalitarian category.

Why single out 172 for "abuse"? He is not really any worse person than the others in the progressive or marixts cliques, in fact, he is actually a sympathetic figure, actually likable. He gets singled out because of his lack of self control, and impulsive line-crossing disruptive outbursts. The sad thing is, he doesn't realize that wikipedia, with its respect for consensus, is actually a friendly place to the collaborative efforts of collectivist thinking. There is critical mass here of progressives that, united, could get anything they want, so is outbursts are completely unnecessary. He needs to be patient and clever like the rest of them (or should it be called "frustratingly elusive"), but instead he misbehaves and becomes vulnerable, like the slowest antelope in the herd.

It is customary, in these circumstances, to point to all the valuable contributions to wikipedia as extenuating circumstances. I think I have contributed to a lot of balance on both scientific and political topics, including much that is well sourced to peer review literature. However, I would not want to be judged on my record of the last couple months, I've been on a bit of a wiki-vacation watching the scientific literature for interesting new developments, and as far as wiki goes, just monitoring the watch list and occassionally be stirred to action by something particularly outrageous, such as csloats monomanic territorialism and 172s "bold" disruption of the deletion vote. -- Silverback

The email was sent at Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:09:28 +0000 --Silverback 18:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback

FYI a candidate RfC has just been created. 172 | Talk 17:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block

As you know I've blocked you for 24 hours for your revert warring, attacks, etc. Arguing here probably won't be necessary as you mailed the mailing list, but you're on the train to a community ban if you don't quit the revert warring, attacks, bad faith accusations, political hatred, etc. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 00:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin needed to delete the CfD/user/Silverback per the 48 hour rule

If you don't follow the rules, what are they for?--Silverback 21:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I am requesting arbitration against you. 172 | Talk 06:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought that was where you were trying to head anyway. I'd be satisfied with mediation. I have no dispute with you, and I will be happy not to mention any of your past abuses, or even criticise your apologia for abusive regimes, if you will just refrain from abuses and not violate norms in order to get your way. I didn't even need your agreement for this. I was not intending to have anything to do with you other than when we encounter each other editing, and even that can be cordial, since we are both capable of being reasonable.

It was interesting to see how widespread the impression of your bias was two years ago, I was not the first to use the term apologist. Lets call this whole thing off. Don't be a glutton for punishment. You shouldn't dish stuff out if you aren't willing to take it. If you are embarassed by past edits, change your username and be more circumspect in the future. Everyone deserves a second chance. Heck, as you well know, I've made some embarassing edits too. But, I guess I figure the overall balance of my contributions is positive, and it is probably chastening for me to have to live with those past edits.--Silverback 07:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing to mediate. I do not need to cut a deal with you to get you to stop making illegitimate and wrong characterizations of my views, edits, and actions. Instead, policy dictates that you do not harass users. Your attacks on me have made it clear that it's a complete waste of time for everyone involved for me to communicate directly to you. So this post should be the last of what I have to say to you. 172 | Talk 07:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Really, you seemed to be using the whole CfD process as carte blanche to attack me.--Silverback 07:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor

I have reverted your edits on this RfA because they were made after User:Durin closed it. Feel free to add them to the talk page if you would still like your view to be seen, however as of now that page is meant to be an archive of sentiment at the time of closing and not continuously update. gren グレン 12:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parole discussion about W.M. Connolley

Dear Silverback,

as you may know, user William M. Connolley has been under parole for several months. He is not allowed to revert climate-related particles more than once a day, and he is not allowed to revert them without an explanation on the talk page at all. Several users have experienced his violations of the parole, see [22], and if you had any problems like that, feel free to complain.

I wish you good luck not only with Wikipeding, --Lumidek 11:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback/Evidence. You may advance proposed solutions and make comments on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback/Workshop. Fred Bauder 14:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of communism

I do not have a personal stake in preferring one version over another, but no progress was being made and Ultramarine has shown no interest in compromising or doing anything but editing his "correct" version and reverting back to it. I am leaving the page protected until ArbCom finalizes it's decision. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted away from that version because I find {{twoversions}} to be against the spirit of Wikipedia. I can say with absolute confidence that I have no preference for the content in either version, because I have not read either version. But I find User:Ultramarine's editing habits to be disruptive and his dogmatism disturbing. Generally, when deciding which party gets peference in administrative actions, I choose the party that appears to have tried the hardest to compromise and assume good faith. In this case, that is not Ultramarine. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait for ArbCom to make their decision. I don't have anything else to say on this. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC...

For what it's worth, Silverback, I didn't post the link to m:The Wrong Version to disrespect you; only to note that somebody is bound to be displeased by any page protection taken by an admin. I apologize if you took it as an insult instead; my meaning should have been more clear. Ral315 (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I agree that someone is bound to be displeased, especially when there are legit editors on each side. I believe that is the very reason the protection policy is designed to be neutral by protecting whatever version is there at the time except in the cases of vandalism. As Ryan Delaney points out, he could have easily violated the spirit of this rule by just waiting for the version he prefered to be reverted to again. Many users probably suspect that is what happens anyway, especially in the cases where their opposition requested the protection on specific admins pages instead of via the central RfP page. When there is the real possibility of such collusion, the mocking tone of the m:The Wrong Version can be particularly insulting.--Silverback 09:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FireFox RFA

Just a note to ask you what you mean by saying I see speedy deletion as a calling? If you could get back to me I would be grateful. Thanks, FireFox 17:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You listed it as one of the things you were looking forward to contributing to. Every speedy delete I've been involved in was too speedy. It is a procedure that is a fastrack way to roll over a minority position. But there is more than that to my vote. You've only been with wikipedia a short time, and haven't participated in much, so there is not much info on what you will be like when you start getting more involved. If I had my way, everybody would start out as admins, and lose it the first time the use it in a personal or POV way. But as things currently stand, it is too hard to get rid of admins that don't work out, and they do a lot damage before they are got rid of.--Silverback 17:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The question doesn't say "looking forward to contributing to", it says "would you anticipate with helping with". All I am saying is that it is a necessary part of the job, which it is, and is exactly what User:OwenX has replied on my RfA page. Thanks for getting back, FireFox 17:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of admins that don't do anything with speedy delete. If you make it, don't get used on stuff that doesn't feel like a real contribution to you. Even if you never use your admin powers all you have wasted is one-bit that turns on the powers. The key thing is don't be tempted to abuse the powers. Now, if you had a calling to hold other admins to higher standards of behavior you might make a real contribution in this environment. But I'm not sure you have a the strength of purpose for that.--Silverback 17:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PRueda29 RFA

Agreeable? Who you calling agreeable? I can damn well fight for what's right! I DEMAND you change your vote... Nah, just kidding, I'm not here to hassle you, LOL, so ignore all that. I'm just here to say thanks for your vote, and that your opinion is appreciated. Though it may seem I am overly agreeable, I actually just believe more in compromise, but only if that person has a good point about what they're trying to argue about, this doesn't necessary mean I can't "fight for what's right". I can assure you that I won't just give in to anyone, and agree with everything anyone says... in fact, I received my barnstar for being resilient while putting the Columbine massacre article up for FAC. I also defend my articles (especially those school articles linked to the district page), from people who want to push their POVs. I'm not here to ask you to change your vote, in fact, leave it... it's nice to see some criticism so I can better myself for later. Thanks! PRueda29 17:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC and RfA

Hi. The link and the RFC seem to be dead? I see that you and 172 are involved in a RfA, I will look into that. Ultramarine 13:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that Ryan Delaney abused his administrative power when protecting without request. He also admits breaking the policy and manages to make a personal attack at the same time: "To this, I plead guilty as charged; I did willfully ignore that part of the blocking policy, and I ignored it because I felt the situation called for me to do so. Rather than revert while protecting, I could have waited for someone else to revert, and then protect the article, and in so doing avoid all appearance of impropriety: but I feel that would not have been necessary. Ultramarine is one of the most stubborn, persistent, and arrogant Wikipedia editors I have encountered."

However, I do no think that it is wise to include other persons or Wikpedia culture in general. Also, Ryan Delaney cannot do any more protects since he has entered evidence in the RfA. Finally, my resources are limited and I think it is better to concentrate them on the current RfAs. For example, examining your RfA will take some time. So I think it is better to let the matter rest for the moment, it can always be reopened later and included as evidence if the problem with Ryan Delaney continues. Ultramarine 14:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I have signed it, although with the above addition regarding other persons and Wikipedia culture. Ultramarine 15:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your allegations against myself

El_C gives you glowing praise and he has supported people and philosophies that think abuse is OK in order to get them what what they want. [23]

In point form, just so it's clear which points get acknowldeged (if at all; sorry, AGF does have its limites): 1. I have voted for countless admins, and save for one, I vote nothing but support, always. 2. Your allegations were not directed in goodfaith, I find. If you have an issue regarding my RfA voting patterns, do you not think the WP:DR would have bee a better way to go about addressing these? 3. As for supporting philosphies that think abuse is OK in order to get them what [sic.] what they want, I challenge this isn't a political polemic you should bring forward to an RfA format discussion, and I could say the same thing (and much, much more) regarding your own philosophy; not to mention your own RfA voting patterns and conduct therein). P.S. please respond here rather than on my own talk page; I wish to limit the traffic there. El_C 11:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed your voting patterns systematically, but keep in mind that even indiscriminate support for RfAs can be a strategy for allowing a threshold number of those you agree with to be elected. Your support for this candidate was early and effusive, and associated with other early and effusive supporters. If someone adheres to political philosophies which tolerate and apologize for abusive leaders, and try to minimize and obfuscate the difference between them and individual rights oriented philosophies, then there is no reason to trust them in a forum of lesser significance such as wikipedia. I gave an honest answer to a person who inquired. You have gone beyond mere tolerance for abuse of the rules and policies, you have already sided with people here on wikipedia, who have abused the system and the community trust. I consider your support for 172 to be support for continued abuse of the system. Have you questioned or expressed any qualms about his methods at all? You gave him carte blanche to put anything he wanted above your signature, effectively turning yourself into a sock puppet while you disappeared for several days. My signature means something. --Silverback 12:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am far from interested in discussing these political-polemical & otherwise issues with you at this time. Your answer did not at all respond to my point-form (and now I'm glad I formatted it that way) querry and I am displeased with it, and therefore, you conduct. Your implied insinuation that keep in mind that even indiscriminate support for RfAs can be a strategy for allowing a threshold number of those you agree with to be elected, is out of line and out of order, without basis in fact, just as your accusation of myself being 172's sockpuppet was (and you need only glance at my last few thousand contributions to see the need we have for people with rollback buttons, but that's an aside). I am noting this attack for my records, and I insist that you must cease immediately from any further such attacks and insinuations. P.S. I actually had no idea what your signature meant; I had to search it now and I suppose you meant silverback.org, which far from means nothing, in this sense, I argue). El_C 13:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

El_C, deleting my posted doesn't limit traffic, after all it had already occurred. Perhaps you can explain your reasons? A short post is a limited form of traffic. If you are designing something why not do it in a sandbox, after all talk pages do have some official purposes.--Silverback 13:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't wish to explain that and I don't feel I have to. I made my request but you chose to ignore it, which has also been duely noted. El_C 13:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No, quit questioning my good faith. I didn't ignore it, I did respond here. My post to your talk page was short and thus respectful of your request to limit traffic. If you meant "stop traffic", you should have said that. Now, will you at least respond to the post that you summarily deleted. After all, I had the courtesy to respond to your post here, instead of summarily deleting it.--Silverback 13:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I no longer consider any further discourse with you to be productive at this time. El_C 13:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Communism issue

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the subject to tell which of the two states of the article is the proper one. The point is that there was a revert war going on. Revert wars are a bad thing, and a common response is protecting the article so that people can talk it out. I'd be happy to assume that you are correct about communism, but frankly I'm no expert and somebody else claims you are wrong. What I think you should do in this and similar cases is ask community input on the article (on WP:3O or WP:RFC). If you are right, other knowledgeable people will agree with you and come to your support. I think you'll find that if you ask "we're in dispute over an article, please tell us which of us is right", you'll get a lot more response than if you ask "we're in dispute over an article, please discipline the other party". Even if the other party was in violation of policy.

That is not to say that people should violate policy. If you see any violations, feel free to mention them on WP:AIV, WP:ANI or my talk page, and somebody will look into them. But please understand that if the communism page were protected in the other version, the other party could make the same complaint that you made. The protection really isn't the problem here, but a symptom; the edit war is the problem. Yours, Radiant_>|< 15:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanx for looking at it, but the other party could not make the same claim, because the article was not reverted away from their version by the protecting admin. I would have no objection to his execution of the policy if he had just encountered the other version there when he protected. It is the reversion that is the issue.--Silverback 16:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not work by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. See WP:IAR and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. You won't get much support for the principle that censuring Ryan is more important than improving the article. This does not mean that we condone abuse; it means that we define abuse as "disrupting the encyclopedia", rather than "breaking the rules". Radiant_>|< 16:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Rules are a means to make the process appear open and fair. They are there for all to see. wikipedia is doing itself a disservice if it doesn't take advantage of the power of a rules based process, and a further disservice, if it pretends to have a rules based process and then thoroughly ignores it.--Silverback 13:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, then let me once more state that Wikipedia does not have a rules-based process. If you want to implement one, I wish you best of luck. Radiant_>|< 17:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] your arbcom case

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Silverback#Recusal.

Sam Spade 19:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That didn't go over very well. Considering the vitriol my insistance on her recusal inspired, I'm not very optimistic about your case. I apologise if I had a negative impact, that was not my intent. Sam Spade 21:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Good intent is not always enough. I am sure the admins themselves think they have good intent, when they push aside the rules in their attempt to achieve what they view as "true justice", but instead they undermine the integrity of the system they are trying to protect. Rules are a good way to achieve a sense of fairness, because they are there for all to see. If the admins disagree with the results the rules appear to be achieving they should change the rules. You have no need to apologize for the failures in judgement of others. You, made your case, the effect was negative, but those who made the result negative, rather than fairly considering the evidence, are responsible for that effect. -- thanx for your attempt.--Silverback 13:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thank you for standing up to the POV warriors for so long. Sam Spade 19:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CfD

If you got a minute can you take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies. This is a challenge to the sourcing of Venona project materials & direct related article series. Thank you. nobs 16:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admins and IAR

Personally I'm a big believer in IAR, but I can understand why you (and, clearly, many others) have issues with it. Anyway, I have a page of my own thoughts on the "admin abuse" problem. I'd like to invite you to read (or even edit) it if you like. See User:Friday/Admin abuse. Friday (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Psy guy's RfA

Thanks for interest in my RfA. It recently closed with final tally of 51/1/2. I fully respect you opposition. I hope I can live up to your expectations. I will try my best to be a good administrator. If you ever need anything, just let me know. Thanks! -- Psy guy (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming

Hello Silverback,

Hope this finds you doing well. I found our discussion about taxes on crude interesting. If you believe in my arguments you are welcome to add them to the GW page. The webpages where my articles can be found are: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=809466 and http://www.idonate.com/consumer.html

I do not wish to add the arguments myself as it could be considered a personal POV. If you do add a section on the benefits of taxes to the US consumers, firms and on reducing GW then I will support you in preventing the section from being deleted.

Regards,

Jayanta Sen 23:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karmafist

You're featured on User:Karmafist/users to watch; recently described by another editor as a "hate page". Andy Mabbett 11:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Now recreated at User:Karmafist/kittens and sunshine, with the same content, but no redirect from the former. Andy Mabbett 08:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Now recreated at User:Karmafist/Notepad, with the same content, but no redirect from either of the above. Andy Mabbett 10:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for your help at Category:Soviet spies. Let me know if I can ever be of assistance. nobs 18:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of dictators

Hey there, I would be grateful for your assistance in countering the systematic vandalism of a user on the List of Dictators page. An administrator is blanking the page every few hours, without any AfD or anything. He has apparently been doing this for a few years.

Yours,

jucifer 22:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Case closed

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback case. Raul654 06:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economic fascism

Hey Silverback. I didn't know you went through an arbitration. If I had known I could have chimed in. But it looks like you made it out ok. Anyway, I'm writing because you may be interested in vote for deletion on the economic fascism article that I authored. (I'm bringing the vote to your attention message because the guy who put it up for deletion went around putting notices on people's talk pages misrepresenting the contents of the article, so maybe some semblance of fairness can be achieved). RJII 16:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Aha I've caught you... garnering for votes RJ? I would watch what you revert if I were you eh? -max rspct 17:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the statements of the closer, address them on his talk page. Don't go edit warring over a closed vote.--Silverback 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Bill of Rights

You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 21:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] I have replied

I replied to your note, and in coming here noticed a test I should take on your user page. I'll post my results when I have them. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pursuit of truth

Hi, Silverback, I was a bit annoyed at you for turning talk:gift economy into a debate (which wasn't really my intention), so I decided to look at your user page because I'm generally less annoyed with people if I like them and if I learn a little about them I like them more.

I saw that you had linked to an interesting test and you said "I guess they don't consider the pursuit of truth an ideal" which got me thinking. Maybe you search for truth the materialistic way. If you answer things like "Everything is rational if given the right amount of effort." and so on, that's the materialist pursuit of truth. What, materialists want to live a lie, generally? No, I don't think they consciously do.

I got scores kinda opposite yours:

You scored as Postmodernist. Postmodernism is the belief in complete open interpretation. You see the universe as a collection of information with varying ways of putting it together. There is no absolute truth for you; even the most hardened facts are open to interpretation. Meaning relies on context and even the language you use to describe things should be subject to analysis. Postmodernist 94% Cultural Creative 88% Idealist 63% Modernist 63% Existentialist 56% Romanticist 50% Materialist 38% Fundamentalist 19%

That does correspond very well with my views, but a downside to tests like these is that they can lock your worldview down. Maybe now I'll be ever more likely to think "Yes! Postmodernist! That's me! And that's what I'll keep being!".

Eh. Well. What was I trying to say? This kind of went nowhere. Well, good luck!

[edit] the above unsigned by Sunnan]

Thanx for taking the time. I'm not sure what any interpretation is worth, if it isn't based upon facts. It risks being inconsistent with facts or inconsistent with other interpretations that are based on facts. In underdetermined situations, where there are many possible interpretations, I am highly tolerant of other interpretations as long as their advocates don't seek to impose themselves on others.--Silverback 11:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homeschooling project

Hello, My name Master Scott Hall (you can call me Scott). I am relatively new contributing to Wikipedia, though I have been a user of it for some time. I am currently soliciting for interest in a Wikiproject that I have proposed on the subject of homeschooling. Before finding Wikipedia, my wife and I were seriously considering, but not quite convinced, to home educate our children.

After discovering the depth, scope, and long-term goals of Wikipedia, as well as the individuals driving it, I am convinced that WP has the potential to revolutionize homeschooling. I am also convinced that home education is the right choice for my family. I have, however, been somewhat discouraged by the oversight of home education in most of the education related projects on WP. There are many potential reasons for this discrepency, but I have resolved to try to do something about it.

Although I personally have very limited experience in building complex Wikiprojects, -templates, -portals, etc., I am confident that the right team can be assembled to tackle these issues. I would like to invite you to join this effort to make Wikipedia the resource for the home education of our children. If you are interested, please visits the temporary project page I have set up. Thank you --Master Scott Hall 08:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: The proposed project on Homeschooling was met with a very positive response. As a result, the project has been ugraded to an official WikiProject and can be found at WikiProject Alternative education. We have several experienced Wikipedians on board, as well as some new faces. We still need contributors with backgrounds in education, education theory and philosophy, and specific alternative education methods, such as homeschooling, charter schools, and E-learning from both teacher and student perspectives. There is also a lack of quality resources regarding anti-alternative education issues. If are interested in contributing or just have an interest, please visit the project page, or if you prefer, ask us a question. Thank you again, Master Scott Hall 18:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petition on Bullying in Wikipedia

Hi Silverback. I have compiled a petition to send to Mr. Wales with respect to my views on bullying on Wikipedia, which I think is a very grave problem on Wikipedia that Mr. Wales needs to address: User:Benapgar/Bullying. Please sign it if you agree, and if you can think of other people who might agree please let them know about it too. Help make Wikipedia a friendlier place.--Ben 01:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Silverback, I removed the part of your comment that was about another user. The petition needs to be kept impersonal. If you're ok with the edit you can take off the little note I put next to it. I know it's tempting to air your grievances there, but it's not going to help you or the petition, and will probably just cause (correction--already has caused :P) fighting. --Ben 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Your comment and 172's comment are back due to the ongoing reverts on the page. It's probably better if you did it yourself. Let him know you did it too so he can remove his objection. --Ben 01:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it really help your petition to have an actual example of bullying/wikistalking demonstrated on it?--Silverback 13:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No actually, because it looks like you are using it as a platform for your personal grievances, which is not what I want this petition to be about. Even if you are being bullied, that's what bullies will claim you are doing and they will use it as an example that you are trolling and they will use it to delegitamize the petition. It may be a good example, but your dispute will not be resolved in the petition. Keeping it impersonal keeps trolls out who will simply want to use the page to fight--and there will be trolls who want to do just that. Trolls are bullies too. If Willy on Wheels signs it and says "Kelly Martin is a bully!!!! I did not vandalize any pages!!! Jimbo please help us!" you can see how that delegitamizes the petition.

What you can do, however, is find examples which don't involve you, and don't involve any administrators you currently have a problem with (though, that can be difficult, since they run in gangs). Examples are good. I've been looking some up on the discussion page, feel free to add some if you find them. The best examples would be people who have quit Wikipedia altogether because they have been bullied. --Ben 00:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you underestimate Jimmy Wales, he's been around for awhile, he knows wiki, and he probably even knows 172, since 172 was the subject of some of the earlier arbcom cases and is one of the few deadmins. I could see your point if you were doing an RfC to the community, but this is a petition to Jimmy, so there is no need to spin things, especially if your argument has some legitimacy.--Silverback 02:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, the petition is about bullying on Wikipedia, not about my dispute, not about your dispute, not about anyone's dispute. You need to take off the stuff about your dispute or remove your signature entirely. Spin things? No. That's the people bullying me making you think that with the stupid shit on the page. I'm not spinning anything. They are spinning because they think I have an ulterior motive. It isn't even possible for me to have an ulterior motive unless they're threatened by an anti-bullying petition. If you (or if any my stalkers) think it is you tell me how. Tell me what possible detrimental result I'm aiming for that isn't stated in the petition. I did actually get a result I wasn't aiming for, is that all the "Outside view" people on the page are clearly demonstrating that they are bullies, and that I'm their target. That's not my problem they've done that, it's theirs.--Ben 06:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You've decided not to remove it so I had to remove your signature. I told you a million times that it is not your personal RFC. If you want to use 172's comments as evidence in an RFC or RFA against him, the diff is here: [24]. --Ben 09:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information for You

I have some information you might like, send me an email. DTC 03:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking Help

I am preparing conduct RFC's against User:Commodore Sloat and User:Ryan Freisling. They have been harrassing me because I have resisted their attempts to push POV in several articles, including Plame Affair and Larry C. Johnson. They and their POV allies have just lauched an unjustified attack RFC on my conduct.[25] I will eventually need someone to join me to certify both RFC's. Could you please review the situation. If you agree that their conduct is becoming a problem, could you weigh in on their talk pages or one of the article talk pages (a pre-requisite to certify a conduct RFC)? It would be appreciated. Thanks! --Mr j galt 00:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)-

[edit] 1RR/7

Please see Talk:Global_warming#Silverback_and_1RR.2F7. William M. Connolley 16:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Block for parole violation

I have blocked you for 24 hrs for parole violation on Global warming, [26] and [27]. The Arbcom was very plain on this: 2) Silverback is limited to one revert per article, per week. If he should exceed this, he may be blocked for a short time, up to three days. Vsmith 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You should not have been the one to block me since you are involved in disputes on the page. Furthermore I have interpreted this as a 1RR rule in good faith and without objection to date. Even WMC called it a 1RR, your interpretation is quite unlike a 1RR.--Silverback 17:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The only edits I have done to the page recently were vandal rollback and a one hit wonder POV pusher on the 4th. WMC correctly did not block because he was directly involved with you on the page, I was considering it before seeing his note to you. The Arbcom was quite explicit that it was not 1RR rule, but one revert per article, per week. Vsmith 18:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right, apologies, I had you confused with Schulz. I have looked at the page for the 3RR, and it doesn't seem to support my interpretation of it. I know I have seen documentation, perhaps at one time on the reporting page, that it had to be of the same material. But based on my current reading of the pages, I have to agree with Schulz that even the 3RR applies to independent reverts of any material on the page. Do you recollect what might have given a different impression at one time? BTW the links that Schulz used for 3RR on the global warming talk page, link to penis, perhaps you can correct this vandalism. thanx, --Silverback 18:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I did what?--Stephan Schulz 18:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not anything you did, your WP:3RR links were being redirected to penis, via a redirect on that target page.--Silverback 18:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Weird eh? I've fixed it. William M. Connolley 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

You broke your parole. Your quibbling about it over at t:GW has removed any sympathy I might have felt. Please read up on the rules while you are blocked. William M. Connolley 17:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

It is interesting that you raised it as an issue, since you were unable to prevale on the merits, and unable to see clearly through your hasty ad hominen assessments. What you call "quibling" was my honest good faith interpretation.--Silverback 17:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK - I've unblocked, as I think you've got it now and are a reasonable chap (most of the time :-). I do remember during the climate wars last spring that there was considerable confusion regarding the definition of 3rr and at least some admins at that time saying it had to be the same revert - this was a problem as it made gaming the system much easier. Many may still work under that mis-interpretation, I tend to avoid 3rr stuff unless it shows up on one of my watched pages (and I have far too many of those :-). On with positive editing. Vsmith 20:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanx! With only one rv per week by this interpretation, I only have positive editing available to me. 8-) --Silverback 21:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please watch Nightline tonight, Feb. 15

Nightline is going to report on the "Saddam Tapes."

Reportedly armed with 12 hours of Saddam Hussein's audio recordings, the organizers of an upcoming "Intelligence Summit" are describing the tapes as the "smoking gun evidence" that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has already authenticated the tapes. These are the same tapes mentioned in Duelfer's Report that had not been translated at the time of the report. For some reason, the tapes were released through a very unusual manner - possibly because some in the intelligence community did not want the truth to come out. The information here will be relevant to many current issue type articles on Wikipedia. Read news story here. [28]RonCram 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pages up for deletion

There are two pages up for deletion Cretan/Spartan connection and Revolution within the form. I ask for a vote for Transwiki. Thanks. WHEELER 23:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Come join the fun!

Take a look at Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents and Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Ryan and csloat do not want wikipedia readers to know about these documents and how they are changing people's minds about the ties between Saddam and Osama. RonCram 22:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a poll done on how they are changing people's minds on this. I've noticed the polls have been showing that a lot of people's minds have been changing lately. Funny how intelligence changes. Kevin Baas^talk 22:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ContiE's Administrator Abuse

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [29] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rio Grande Foundation

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Rio Grande Foundation, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.riograndefoundation.org/. As a copyright violation, Rio Grande Foundation appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Rio Grande Foundation has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Rio Grande Foundation. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Rio Grande Foundation, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

Gamaliel 20:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Dominionism

Template:Dominionism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the PRA and Berlet from the dominionism template. You didn't give a clear explanation. We don't normally include critics or reporters of a movement in movement templates. -Will Beback 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see similar inclusions on any other template. Can you provide an example of a comparable inclusion? -Will Beback 00:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominionism movement

Copied from User talk:FeloniousMonk --FloNight ^talk 06:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Silverback, I was unconvinced by the Harpers article and asked FM for more sources. FM has provided a variety of reliable sources. I listen to the PBS interview and have skimmed most of the sources. As editors, we are responsible for developing an article that presents all valid pov. I still have a few questions but all in all this seems vaild to me. The category reflects the content of the articles and is reasonable. FloNight talk 05:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba

Hi,

Believe it or not, knowing some of the positions you have taken in the past, I think that the two of us might actually agree on a particular dispute.

Adam Carr recently started bringing the Cuba article up to standard, gradually rewriting each section. In the meantime, his work has been resisted for several weeks by a group of Castro supporters who dispute, among other things, that the fact that Cuba is not a democracy. Adam Carr is now at a conference for a couple of weeks, meaning his work will likely be undone. If you have the time and the interest, please take a look.

Best regards. 172 | Talk 17:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of dictators

I'm really annoyed.

After I and you and many others worked hard to make this article truly excellent and indeed an exemplar list on wikipedia, the same people that tried to get the previous list deleted come along a pull a scam like this.

I don't know if the deletion was marked at the top of the page, but I check the article from time to time and didn't notice it. They picket the holiday season when no one was looking, lost the vote, deleted anyhow using the same argument that was explicitly rejected by the community now and before. They gave no notice to the people who were watching the article. Doc Glasgow had previously been involved in the article and should have recused himself anyway. Hundreds of hours of people's time have been deleted on the whim of a admin with in axe to grind.

Carefully worked out criteria, methods of discussion, 120 references, dozens of articles linking in, a fantastic resource.

Again to refute the silly argument made by some that dictator is an "inherently POV" descriptor, simply search wikipedia for the word dictator and notice how many people are described that way. Britannica, Encarta etc all do so, as do all news outlets.

What can we do?

juicifer 13:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page box for NOR

Hi there! Given your past participation WRT Template:Talkheader, I wanted to get your opinion on something. I've been working on a draft for a proposed template in a similar vein. If you have a minute, could you head on over to User:DragonHawk/Temp1 and let me know what you think? You can comment on the talk page there. Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Dominionism

As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)