User talk:Wndl42

Welcome!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Wndl42! Thanks for joining the fray over at the Corporate Personhood Debate article. It is too bad that corporate personhood has been translated, via redirect, into the Wikiality newspeak non-equivalent (and inappropriately capitalized) Corporate Personhood Debate. In any case, the article you have been editing needs to be retitled, or moved over to where it belongs at Corporate personhood. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the New contributors' help page, the Wikipedia Tutorial and the Manual of Style, and If you still need any help, you can always post your question at the Help Desk.
• When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia and Assume good faith, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, Wndl42, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and my response

Hi Ombudsman,

Thank you, for your kind welcome and extremely helpful tips (and reminders)!

FYI, I created the page title "Corporate Personhood Debate" to create a place to restore the original "Corporate personhood" article and the topic it represents -- after another user had redirected the latter to "Juristic person" and moved all of it's contents to the "talk" page of an intermediate page, "Juristic person/CP". All of this appeared to me to be (possibly) motivated by a POV in favor of censoring or camoflaging the controversy.

It appeared to me like someone found a way to effectively 'delete' the Corporate personhood page without going through the process of nominating it for deletion and gaining concensus. Perhaps this was not intentional, but as a result, the "Juristic person" page is now tagged non-NPOV because all the POV wars over Personhood/personhood are mucking up what is an important article on the legal concept, and now Wikipedia does not have good articles on either "Juristic person" (legal idea) OR Corporate personhood (controversy).

Looking for Wikipedia precedent for this, I examined another politically controversial topic, abortion, and noted that we finally achieved a 'peaceful' outcome (nutrality concensus) AND excellent content by providing separate pages for an encyclopedic entry on Abortion, and for Abortion Debate. This seemed to me to be the best way to solve the issue and restore the "political controversy" topic as a recognized element of US political landscape, while silmultaneously allowing a path to eventually achieve nutrality on the "Juristic person" legal article under WikiProject Law.

Regarding capitalization, I chose Personhood purposefully, as the debate/controversy is over the extent to which the "legal personality" of a corporation has proceeded from treating corporations properly as 'legal/juristic persons' under the law to the (opponents say) increasingly inappropriate treatment of corporations as Persons (natural human beings), thereby conferring "Personhood" status equal to that of natural persons in some important and controversial areas. I think that "personhood" versus "Personhood" is one way of highlighting the core of the debate/controversy.

This having been said...ultimately I don't think the Personhood vs. personhood is all THAT important and I >>happily<< defer to you on this matter...

Anyway, with the restoration of the original "Corporate personhood" page to "Corporate Personhood Debate", all of the talk pages seem to have been restored as well, and I commented and documented my changes on the "Juristic person" page as well, if you want to check out the history.

As a fair disclosure, my POV is first and foremost against censorship of the topic, secondly that Wikipedia presents neutral POV on both topics, (the 'thing' and the 'debate', and thirdly -- I am admittedly on the anti-Personhood side of the controversy. I am also a neophyte here and greatly appreciate your help and interest!

Again, thanks for the warm welcome and I hope you will continue to look in on the topic and keep an eye on me/others for civility and POV, and further "wiki tricks" (intentional or not).

Thanks (again),

riverguy42 15:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Case citations...

...should be italicized - e.g. Smith v. Jones, 123 So. 2d 456 (1999). Also, please try to use the full case citation where possible (most can be tracked down fairly easily on the Internet). Cheers! bd2412 T 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed...will do ASAP...thanks,

Corporate Personhood Debate

Although you present a compelling rationale about the majority of discussion of corporate personhood being about the debate over it, the same could be said about abortion (or affirmative action, or global warming, or the alternative minimum tax). This is precisely why the main article on any of these topics should describe what the thing is and a separate article (referenced from the main article) should describe the controversy surrounding it.

I'm all for structuring both articles so that one naturally leads readers to the other, but irrespective of the dispute over corporate personhood, it is a thing that presently exists and that people have to understand in their business dealings. That was the rationale behind my restoration of the previous redirect - perhaps we can resolve this by having a summary and reference to the debate article early on in the juristic person article? Cheers! bd2412 T 17:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am feeling SOOO new here and ignorant of this world...thanks...

re: "...the same could be said about abortion..."

Absolutely - that is the first place I looked for Wikipedia precedent. There are two excellent pages, one for Abortion and one for Abortion Debate. That's where I'm hoping to take this, because the "Juristic person" page is sorely non-NPOV and, under the scope of WikiProject Law should (I imagine) be relieved of the POV wars.

re: "perhaps we can resolve this by having a summary and reference to the debate article early on in the juristic person article?"

That would help, but the issue of "personhood" is associated with the debate/controversy and not with the legal concept, and if there MUST be a redirect, I would like to see Corprorate personhood redirect to the debate rather than the WP:Law definition of a "juristic person".

I'm not sure if this can be better solved with a disambiguaiton page, what do you think?

And OBTW...thanks VERY much for the civility and help...riverguy42 17:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the matter, although I think a disambiguation page is not needed (after all, we are only looking at two concepts which are already related). In retrospect, I'm ok with the current setup (although it does seem to defy convention a bit). Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sun Myung Moon

Hi, Wnd. Thank you for your lengthy analysis of my recent contribs.

You may be surprised to find that I agree with much of what you said. I will reply with indented comments on my talk page. In particular, I appreciate the depth of your analysis on the "charged/complained" thing. You are right, and if you haven't already done so, I'm going to revert my own edit. "Charged" is certainly the right word, and I'm happy that (1) you pointed this out and (2) took so much time to explain why it is the right word! :-)

See you at talk:Ed Poor. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for bringing up the subject and object relationship here. This is something I've been meaning to straighten out for decades (literally). --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And also thanks for thinking carefully about the best way to word a subtopic like views on women. I have a quote rattling around in my head about men and women having equal value, despite having different "positions" or "roles". Maybe you can locate it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed. You might want to check out my addition to the article Rev. Moon's theology seems to embrace a "physical form follows spiritual function" thoughtstream as regards Genesis -- which is the right basic idea, it follows many other eastern traditions in this regard. I wish he'd gone a little deeper down this path all the way to it's spiritual-linguistic roots before reaching his conclusions about Genesis in the "Divine Principle". For example, if Rev. Moon had taken the time to deeply understand the Hebrew language in which Genesis was written, he'd have discovered the much broader, deeper and (IMO) more beautiful view of man-woman that is told there, rather than the 'subject-object' metaphor. This view can only be derived when one uses the unfortunately and utterly insufficient hebrew-to-whatever language translations, ALL of which fail to adequately convey the mind of G-d as described in the original hebrew composition. I think this is particularly sad in Rev. Moon's case, as he certainly understands, perhaps more than anyone else, the myriad ways in which the Korean language is superior to English these purposes, and Rev. Moon has had lots to (rightly) say about this, but he fell into the "tower-of-babel" trap of presuming that Korean was the best language just because it was better than english. Anyway, what I see in the "subject-object" metaphor is shards of evidence of the common-to-all-religions "Golden Thread of Truth". Unfortunately virtually all of the world's judeo-christian derived faiths take their own linguistic interpretations and build dogma around them, and it's the dogma that divides rather than unites. UC dogma is particularly divisive in this regard, and in this, Rev. Moon shows an all-too-human failing. I hope that you and the other UC member editors will help focus some attention on the unifying elements of UC theology.

The connotations of the English words subject and object do not quite match the meanings of the Korean terms juche (추체) and daesang (대상), particularly as used by Rev. Moon. I really wish the translators of Divine Principle had left these particular terms untranslated, so that English readers would realize they have no precise counterparts in Western philosophy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I can agree to a point, but in the end Rev. Moon needs to be ultimately responsible for his words and "take the heat". I still think Moon's theology here, namely that women are "receptacles" for "seed", is sadly off-base. The extensive surrounding context in which he used those words leaves little room for reinterpretation regardless of any "translation" difficulties, indicating (to me anyway) that Moon has not (yet) understood the 'poetry' of Genesis as understood by native Hebrew linguists.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work

Nice work on Bible code! Λυδαcιτγ 07:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in particular, just the improvements you've made in the past few days. Λυδαcιτγ 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Hi,

You may change your signature - on talk pages you've got a totally different signature versus user name. Very confusing. Unless you've got a really good reason, it makes talk pages harder to follow and attribute who is saying what, when. A particular problem when you're trying to use diffs.

Agreed. I would like to be known as Riverguy42, but not sure how to do it.

Also, you just dumped 9K worth of text on a talk page. That much reading is really time consuming. You may want to consider shorter posts. WLU (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason for this was that I used an offline editor and had to copy and re-paste the entire thing. I am refuting some efforts to portray me as a bad-faith editor by a pair of editors who share histories as particularly difficult and tendentious editors. Recently, one of these editors was caught in a blatant lie about his reasons for citing WP:RS as justification for repeatedly blanking my edits.

Further point - this set of edits is quite long, and contains two links - one of which should be a wikipage (and therefore isn't a real reference because wikipedia isn't a reliable source. WP:PROVEIT states that when an edit is challenged, the burden is on the add-ee (that'd be you in this case) to source the contested information. Also consider if the non-wiki source you provided ([1]) is reliable, and represents all viewpoints on the matter. Should it be qualified? Also, what is the tone like - does it portray things as truth? Can it be shortened? Is it overly long considering there is a main article on day-age creationism? Creationism is a HUGE page, adding large amounts of text when there's a more appropriate main aritlce isn't usually a good idea - see WP:SS. Articles are spun off because the original article is too unweildy to use. Also, is the edit neutral? Is it overly sympathetic to one perspective? In my opinion, this block of text was appropriately removed from this page, but may go in Day age, if it's not already there. But it would need better sources, or consensus from other editors that it works. WLU (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have conceded much (most) of these points, and am in the process of improving sources. Please do note that I have deferred, based on talk page discussions, restoring my edit until the concerns expressed have been resolved. Thanks for the notes.riverguy42 (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You might try reading WP:TALK, mostly for the idea that you shouldn't break up posts regularly, exception only (in other words, only post beneath other's comments, even if you're replying to a comment above).

Regards your name, you could try looking at WP:U, especially here. Or you could just start a new account, stop using this one, and put a note of your new name. I'd see if you can get your name changed first at WP:U.

Finally, creationism, evolution and all the controversial flashpoints between the two sets of pages get a lot of trolls and sockpuppets. The civility is much, much lower, WP:AGF as well, and biting is the norm. It attracts a lot of POV-pushing cranks. If you are trying to edit with a pro-creationism view, or even just adding information, excellent sources or toe-ing the line are both things that may help your edits stay up. Unfortunately. WLU (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, from what I can see no-one is known as Riverguy42 (talk · contribs), so you could just create the account. WLU (talk)

You got a very civil reply from Haf by the way, I've seen him bit and chew people before - s/he's never wrong and always works within policy (though sometimes pushing the boundaries of the policy), but dealing with the creationism pages often leads to a lapse in wikiquette. And s/he's completely right, talk pages never get {{fact}} tagged. Ever. It's not a matter of annoying him, it's actually wildly inappropriate. You may want to have a gander at this essay I wrote - it gives an overview of the wiki process and whatnot. WLU (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed your essay. Yeah...I got a perspective on what I think is Hrafn's POV and apparent editing demeanor from his edit history and talk page, he bites alot but also brings alot. Your comments/essay help me put these reactions in context. Seems if someone wants to work on articles like these, it takes a very thick skin and a lot of perseverence (and a willingness to throw an elbow or two on the court). In the end I think incivil behavior (on the whole) does more to drive away good contributors and contributions than what is given back those who engage in it, no matter what the quality of their work is. I would guess that the most erudite and capable editors would have very little patience for this crap and just quit, which sucks for Wikipedia. Fortunately for me (and maybe for Wikipedia) I am not among this group.

But, I didn't find in your essay (nor can I find in WP:TALK or WP:DE) any reference to fact-tagging of talk pages. The WP:TALK guidelines seem to indicate that talk pages should be treated like any other pages in the case of problems with WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and when those problems are encountered in the context of presonal attack, well, I figured it was clearly time to throw an elbow, if that's what it takes to balance the strong POV that I see in the articles at Creationism and Day-age creationsm. Nevertheless, if there is a policy or guideline that I'm violating by fact-tagging on the talk page, I'd like to know about it. Really, I hope I'm not being dickish by asking you, I do agree with you that the tactic of fact-tagging was (in typical circumstances) quite inappropriate as you say, but I really do want to know. A willingness to ignore a rule when "necessary" does not justify my ignorance of the rule I decide to ignore.

Just for the record, I resorted to this less-than-optimal defense posture in the face of repeated and prolonged use of (a) Straw Man mis-characterizations of my edits, intended to make them (and me) appear silly, and (b) the "wear out the enemy" tactics of refutations via Proof by assertion and Argumentum ad infinitum, and (c) outright and intentional falsehoods. At some point I think this behavior constitutes a particularly vile and pernicious (though subtle) form of personal attack. I think it's a pretty good case of a couple of tendentious editors protecting their "turf" by whatever means possible. For now, I'm just patiently building a dossier in order to be ready for one of them to make good on a threat, or if things (hopefully) calm down maybe I'll just write an essay on the use of these tactics for the benefit of future editors.

You asked above, "If you are trying to edit with a pro-creationism view...", well, this is the MOST frustrating thing to me. While my personal POV should not be an issue as long as I behave, the truth is that I am absolutely aligned with the POV that NO form of "creationsim" should be endorsed or taught or tolerated in a secular democracy, same as the editors I'm in conflict with. I am very Jeffersonian in this regard. What I see and am trying to correct is the problem that the entire set of Wikipedia articles on this topic are the result of many years of battles between the extreme polar opposite POV's, and as a result there is little or no tolerance for any POV from the middle, any information that would diminish the "black and white" contrast that keeps the "battle lines" clearly defined is not tolerated by either side. For example, the idea that interpretations of Genesis in which a "day" is something other than a "earth-based 24 'hour' day based on the rotation of our planet" are as old as the Jewish faith (and I am not Jewish either), and they are not merely "inventions" dreampt up by creationists to evade the conclusions of science, but on reviewing these articles, I not that thst is the "clear battle lines" POV that these articles portray. The editors who "own" the creationism pages seem intent on making sure that nothing presented on Wikipedia serves to diminish the contrast between the armies, and this serves to make sure the treatment of these topics is as inflammatory and incendiary as possible. For me, if I'm "throwing my elbows around", it's on behalf of that set of views that seek to mitigate, rather than accentuate the differences. Quite frankly, the "Creationism" series on Wikipedia is a joke and an embarrasment to Wilkipedia.

As I write this, I realize that I do have a minor critique of your essay you may wish to consider, and it is this. Your essay (and also your advice to me) seems to spend a lot of time apologizing and explaining away the incivility of tendentious editors. I would think that the community of Wikipedians and Wikipedia itself would be better served if we were more strict about behaviour on controversial topics and not less strict. In this sense I think your essay tends to spend too much time "explaining" and in some sense justifying "bad behaviour" -- at least that was the impression I got. As I said, I think your essay is very good and this is a minor point, I'd welcome your thoughts.

Thanks again WLU, and do let me know where I can find some info on fact-tagging talk pages.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration on Sun Myung Moon article

Thanks for all your recent contribs to SMM. I am particularly grateful for this copy-edit. You turned my thoughts, which were just off the top of my head, into properly-expressed enyclopedia prose! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ed...that's high praise for me (a strong critic of Moon and the Church) coming from you as a member of the Church. I am quite pleased that you see me as someone who can have a strong POV and yet strive for and achieve fairness and balance in my edits. I really enjoy working with you, especially because our collaborations have been productive in spite of our differences. Thanks for the kind note. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with criticism. Anything that's good can withstand a few potshots; anything that's bad deserves the criticism anyway.

Now about theocracy, let's try to create a sort of workshop. Rev. Moon did indeed say that "...[the] United Nations should invite True Parents to take the position of Secretary-General in eternity." (source: Moon's speech on Foundation Day 1997) I have no problem with this: it's an exact quote.

Our only dispute is over what this means. Do you see it as a call for a one-world government? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I see it, on reading lots of stuff from the Church, and especially after seeing Neil Bush stand up front and center at the "Abel U.N." leadership conference in Japan last month. Great photo op, and lots of cool pictures.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Now please take a look at User:Ed Poor/Moon on democracy. I invite your comments. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks, and I will look at Moon on democracy.....oh, and please check your e-mail. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

history

User ScienceApologist was provided guidance at ArbCom to remove the following personal attack from my talk page and make an apology. See here.

As the editor has declined ArbCom guidance, I am assuming the intent of the editor is to allow the following Personal Attack to remain here as part of this editors resume at Wikipedia.

Take some physics classes 

I'm sorry that you are ignorant of physics and haven't been able to understand the sources I cited. You might find it easier editing in areas outside of the purview of WP:PHYSICS. Your edit-warring to promote WP:FRINGE viewpoints will be resisted. If you continue down this road, you will find yourself subject to blocks and bans.

Best,

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that ScienceApologist has published a notice on the Fringe theories noticeboard.[2]. The noticeboard really should alert editors when something is posted. TimidGuy (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom enforcement

Just wanted to make you aware that you were mentioned (only mentioned! nothing bad!) in this report on ScienceApologist. It looks like you've only been editing Wikipedia since the end of October 2007, less than three months. if this is the case, then I must extend my greetings, and hopes that you have not been too seriously bitten. I'm always available if you need advice or other assistance! Just drop a note on my talk page or send me an email. Dreadstar † 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the biter got a far more serious bite in return than anything he was able to inflict, and a nice addition to his resume. Case closed...justice done...karma delivers SA a little more rope to hang himself with in the future...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your most excellent response on my talk page, very interesting reading with some great points and observations. There is indeed irony aplenty when applying the spade to dig up a good source by accident. Wikipedia has a fairly wide range of behaviorial guideance. I'd suggest reading through these...

• Wikipedia:No personal attacks
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Harassment
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

Let me know if you need more information, or any other assistance at all! Oh, and I'll remove the offending comments from your talk page. You can do it yourself, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, best bet is to set up archiving, check out: Wikipedia:Archiving. Dreadstar † 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RfM filed

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the continuing dispute over the lead section of this article. You have been listed as an involved party, please respond on the mediation page at your earliest convenience. Dreadstar † 19:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving at "What the Bleep"?

Hi Dreadstar, I agree the page was too large, but some recent and well-reasoned dialog got "put away", including this, and there's a resolution process in play...was there a reason for doing the archiving now, rather than waiting to let the mediation process percolate a bit??

Just curious, I'm a first timer in a mediation. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The page was too large and needed to have some of the material archived or at least refactored. If there are specific sections that you think should be put back, then by all means copy them from the archive page and put them back on the talk page. I was just trying to reduce the amount of material and tried not to take away anything still active and relevant. Dreadstar † 23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Moon propaganda update

River, in the last couple of years, two of the three main US media organs of the Unification movement have changed significantly.

Mon Frere, I really do try to look for the "good" in people and institutions first, Cato Institute is wonderful. Getting the "word out" about these changes and recent new management puts an appropriately good face on the story, and drawing attention to this as you are is all good, but after 25 years of "misbehavior" -- the world outside of unificationism needs to see the effects of these changes...we are way past "Assume Good Faith" with respect to the misdeeds of the Washington Times, Insight, etc.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The monthly World&I magazine was reduced from a bulky monthly of several hundred pages to a slim bimonthly (last issue had 88 pages); its online version is available only by subscription. Its subtitle is "Innovative Approaches to Peace" and it is published by Rev. Moon's right hand man, Chung Hwan Kwak (who is also the director of the Universal Peace Federation). I am personally acquainted with its editor-in-chief and half its editorial board, and I'm here to tell you that it directly represents core values of the movement.

Well, if it's not freely published, can you post a summary here under "fair use"? I am sincerely hoping to see these innovations and truly...I am fully expecting (hopeful of) a "maturation", please help me see it with my own eyes. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The weekly Insight has been converted into a web 'zine, and I have no idea who manages it or why (personally, I've written it off). I do not feel that it is in any way representative of the Unification movement. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Ed, if you don't know of Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Kuhner or his pre-insight history, then I'm very surprised. Insight may or may not be representative of the UC, but it is owned and subsidized by News World, so the Buck stops there. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The flagship of this media flotilla is plainly The Washington Times. While I don't think it loses quite as much as $300 million a year, it probably does get at least $100 million a year from the movement to prop it up. The Times is not ideological or biased in its news reporting, even if its editorials do express a point of view. (Does anyone doubt the objectivity of the NYT merely on account of its editorial page or endorsement of Democratic/Liberal candidates for public office?

You are right, the NYT's leanings/bias are widely discussed. But I would impishly invoke Steven Colbert, and offer that "and as we all know, reality has a well known liberal bias" ;-)

Now, Rev. Moon may have boasted about news stories which only the Washington Times would cover - and may have asserted that coverage of the Soviet Union helped lead to its dissolution. But does anyone think the USSR would shrivel up and die if false reports had been made about it? No, the WT uncovered the truth, and that is why conservatives rely upon it to counter the liberal bias of much of the rest of the media, particularly the spiking of news stories which contradicts the liberal or pro-Communist worldview. (An early editor of the WT wrote a novel called The Spike based on this kind of self-censorship.)

The Washington Times started out as a culmination of Rev. Moon and Bo Hi Pak's support for candidate Reagan, which was fine, but it all went down hill when Bush Sr. broke ranks (firing Karl Rove, for example), and the Washington Times went into the gutter from there.

The role of responsible media is supposed to be to inform the public about what's really going on, not to engage in propaganda which hides unflattering realities. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

On this we are agreed. The Washington Times use of the first anniversary of 9/11 to attack public school teachers (by proxy, through the NEA) is probably the single most disgusting act of "journalistic" disintegrity in modern history, totally eclipsing Annenberg's slaughter of Milton Shapp. This makes people (like MediaWeek) disgusted and angry.

Leo Strauss described a "hierarchy" of different myths that were appropriate for a "hierarchy" of players, myths for the "unwashed masses", myths for the "troops", myths for the "field commanders", myths for the "movement leadership", etc., but with Strauss, the "truth" was reserved for the athiest "high preists" of the "church of the big lie", and in the Strauss model these "high priests" are explicitly athiest. In the neo-straussian "twist", one of these "high priests" is among the founders of Team B. I personally believe that (consistent with the Straussian model) Rev. Moon is NOT among the "high priests" of the athiest neo-straussian model that has been in play for the last 35 years. When I try to contemplate Rev. Moon as a "good" man, I have to then consider that Rev. Moon has been "used" to create the straussian propaganda model that is at the core of the neo-straussian agenda. Moon's "revelation" is likely absolutely genuine to him...and I respect his sincerity in that, but if the Unification movement had not pre-existed in the 1970's, it would have to have been invented, according to the school of Strauss. It would not be the first time that a messiah and his movement were co-opted in this way, see Council of Nice. In Thom Hartmann's book, "What Would Jefferson Do?, Hartmann documents that the founder's intent WRT separation of church and state was even more concerned with the corruption of churches by government than it was the reverse! Ahhh...but I digress. Please don't come back at me with "synthesis" or "WP:OR on this, you know I'm well sourced on Strauss, well supported here, and citing history is not synthesis.

The changes at the Times are either (a) signs of the maturation of unification, or (b) an attempt to clean up the "image" of unification's media arms. For (a), we need evidence in terms of actions (firing Kuhner and disolving "Insight" would be a start, or at least a public rebuke of Kuhner and the disavowal of the "anonymous sourcing" policy). For (b), well the Unification church's extensive promotion in Japan of December 18, 2007 photo-ops with Neil Bush, embracing his ambassadorial support for "Abel U.N." provide at least tangential evidence that the neo-straussian influence on unificationism is continuing. Proof is in the pudding.

Thanks Ed, I enjoy our exchanges. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do digress, but it's your own talk page so that's not a problem. I just wanted to give you some background on Unification media.

Clearly we disagree on who was "using the 9/11 issue". It looks to me that conservatives were not dissing teachers but only responding to NEA politicization of the anniversary. You saw the David Limbaugh column?

Ed...please, yeah I saw Limbaugh, and

(a) the NEA website went up immediately after the attacks in 2001(!!!!) The Sorokin piece hit in Aug 2002 (in time for the elections.

(b) WRT Limbaugh...check out paragraph six, in which Limbaugh weasle-words, saying he says he was "invariably led to" the web sites, falsely implying that the sites he quoted were actually ON the NEA site, which they were not. C'mon Ed, how can you believe anyone with the last name Limbaugh? Remember "volcano chlorine"? Limbaugh writes for Insight too... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for acknowledging that Rev. Moon is not an atheistic Straussian. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am HOPING he's not, and allow for the possibility...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias on Insight report?

Having spent a lot of time looking through your edits to a stablised part of the article, I can now see you have been guilty of clear bias all along - blatantly removing anything that looks half-bad about Clinton out of the article! Even when it's all an attack on her anyway! Madness! I consider you a time waster and a POV pusher. I'm pretty anoyed to be honest - I spend a lot of my time keeping my own POV out, and being objective, and reading/replying to your posts. I'll be reverting to before you embarked on your changes. Don't POV push again - not one of your arguments stands up to logic, and the section is now an absurd misrepresentation of the Insight report!

I'm afraid the story is simply about Clinton - you can't try and hide that on the grounds that her name being used is 'propagating the smear'!! We have no proof of Insight's real intent (it was unsourced) - and we certainly can't over-write our own take on what Insight really meant - and present that as fact!! They alleged what they alleged - and it's the Insight page!!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now got it back to yesterdays edit (which took me ages, given what you've been doing) - please work properly from what we had from now on. Always use Talk for solid explanations and ideally to find consensus. This Insight/Clinton/Obama issue has been a difficult topic, and was finally genuinely settling down.--Matt Lewis (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you are way off base. Your charges of "POV pushing" on behalf of a political candidate are (a) blatantly false (as you would see if you took a moment to check my overall edit history), (b) a personal attack, for which I will report if you if you continue.

If you so badly need to attribute a POV to me, then examine the facts, get them right, or simply ask me rather than assuming. I am interested in Sun Myung Moon's media properties in the context of "Straussian lies" and "heavenly deceptions", please see (a) George Mason University's article on Straussian lies at "Stop the Straussians before they lie again", and how that topic is related to this topic. I am a critic of Sen. Clinton's on the basis of her failure to "speak truth to power", and on her acceptance of corporate funds for her campaign, but I see the real problem here on Wikipedia in the editorial focus by WP:Tendentious editors on "perpetuating the myths" that have been so successfully propagated through the moonie media machinery. I am a "Cato institute style" libertarian-(paleo)conservative and an ardent critic of post-Reagan neoconservatism, just like Francis Fukuyama is. Matt, by posting personal attacks here on my talk page, you are being a WP:DICK, please stop. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And...

The article's talk page is the place to discuss your issues with the article's content, so I will repost your comments there. WNDL42 (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• UPDATE The above issue is now being discussed at the WP:WQA noticeboard here WNDL42 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/What the Bleep Do We Know!?. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Insight (magazine)

I don't think there would be enough evidence of misbehavior to disable editing by established users. It's a contentious issue, ridiculously, to a large degree. I've decided to take it off my watchlist and let the quality drop if it wants to. You can always try for a request for arbitration or focus on people violating 3RR. You could also ask an admin to step in if you know any, but people don't generally listen to admins just because they are admins.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bible code

I missed your explanation of why you thought my removals were excessive, and my comment "WNDL, I don't see why you restored the original criticism section..." was made in ignorance of that explanation. Pardon me.

Nonetheless, while I appreciate the importance of watching out for POV-pushers, I don't think that they justify keeping the old section, which was definitely full of POV, whether McKay complained about it or not. What I tried to do was cut down the arguments presented to brief summaries. Don't you think that's the most encyclopedic approach? Λυδαcιτγ 05:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Audacity, I'll respond briefly on your talk page, and then let's take the discussion to the article talk page, OK?

For now, let me say here that I don't agree that the section removed (which had it's basis in McKay's own original POV version) was "full of POV" except to the extent that it balanced the MBBK POV with the WRR POV. When I found the article, there was a strongly WP:UNDUE weighting in favor of the MBBK POV, reflecting and carrying forward the original MBBK bias to the extent that what I found there was a WP:COATRACK for the MBBK POV. WNDL42 (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Insight, Obama, etc.

Thanks for your hard work on all this. The articles seem to be in good shape now, hard hitting but not attacking individuals unfairly. Please let me know if any more problems come up. Cheers. Redddogg (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Humor bordering on incivility?

Listen, I removed the section because it was stepping over the bounds of funny and into spitefulnesses. This "comedy relief" has stirred up a pot of bad blood that had been dieing down. I'm going to assume good faith that you aren't meaning to be hurtful in some some of your comments there. Ff I see any more that could be constrained as patronizing, harassing or in mean spirit, even if in the wording of humour, I will be reporting you for them. Consider this your warning on the matter. Jefffire (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. Your deletion of an entire section of entirely relevant discussion on the talk page fails WP:AGF and several dozen other talk page guidelines and wikipedia policies.

Furthermore, In the absence of specific diffs to support the false charges against me that underlie your threat, and in the context of the behavioral patterns of the editors who find the humour somehow objectionable, I find your threatening post here to be itself a personal attack. Should you decide to follow through, I'd suggest you review this in the context of this beforehand. In the meantime, as you have made a threat, I will expect you to post diffs here immediately reflecting the specific edits that you characterized above. WNDL42 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Take at look at [Tu quoque], an article, on an interesting logical fallacy. Now, I'm choosing to believe that you've not meant somethings to have the [tone they did], and Boodles is the only one really overstepping the mark. I'm just saying now, we don't need old scabs opened up. Jefffire (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you and thanks for properly characterizing what you mean about my edits. BTW, Tu quoque cuts both ways, and I think a strong argument could be made in favor of a "legitimate" interpretation.

Now, the "old scabs" you refer to are actually quite fresh and continuing injuries, and certain editors that Boodlesthecat may have been chastising continue to be quite openly hostile to Wikipedia's civility guidelines, and have not improved their behavior, even while on "civility parole" since November, so any assertion that a process of "healing" is being disrupted by Boodles is, respectfully, misinformed by relevant and current events. When the most recent block expires, I will assume good faith that your vigilance will extend equally to all parties. Thanks. WNDL42 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

Thanks for noticing[3] my efforts. I just wish I had the time to offer more to the discussion. Good luck! - Tobogganoggin ^talk 02:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

GolfStyles magazine

I started an article on GolfStyles magazine, an upscale, expensive-looking full-color glossy monthly that's part of the Moon media empire, but it was immediately nominated for deletion. I suspect someone didn't read it carefully and I assumed I worked for the magazine. After that I added some more recognition, and explanation on the Talk page re notability. Could you take a look? I think people ought to know that America's most popular regional golf magazine (so I heard but have no reference) is published by Moon. I removed the deletion template (you can see it in the history), but it can still be deleted if an influential person thinks it should be. Perhaps you'd like to either add to the article or add to my rationale on the Talk page. -Exucmember (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Relevant google search...

here

Good ref here

anon

bleep bleep

hey there

All I'm trying to do on the bleepin' entry is impress upon the Science Stalinists the humble fact that if they simply make it a relatively NPOV article, then they needn't worry that this movie will somehow turn every gain in scientific methodology made since Bacon (Francis or Roger) into bacon. As it stands now, to a reader of the article, the walk away message of the article is "scientists are a bunch of humorless, opinionated, authoritarian inquisitors." But that's a by-product of what seems to be a lack of respect for the average reader, who they feel must be spoon fed the correct line. All the reader sees in reading this is the critical POV, and that, ironically, drowns out whatever message the Stalinists are trying so heavy-handedly to get across.Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. We're 100% in agreement. Did you happen to see my Google Scholar meta-analysis on "Scientific Materialism is a Religion" (which got some laughs), or the one chiding the stalinists for invoking the 14th century language of the "church of the Inquisition"? WNDL42 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What BLP considerations? Protection isn't an endorsement of any version (see m:The Wrong Version); I have this sneaking suspicion that I protected the wrong version. If there are serious BLP concerns in the current version (e.g. the person could email OTRS about it or whatever) then I'll remove those. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

grazie

thanks for stepping in and protecting my lair from creepy anti-Semitic infiltration :) Sorry I've been away from Bleep-land; I took a nap and then the amount of talk there went way beyond what I could catch up on. It might be good for everyone to take at least a few hours breather, and try to not cover arguments that have been argued multiple times already. At least let's find something new to argue about! :) Speaking of controversial bla bla, are you familiar with Julian Barbour? Quite good stuff, whether you agree with his thesis or not. cheeers, Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wheeler of course I know from his wonderful semi-popular explications of Gen Rev. Bekenstein I will look into; I'll start by snagging the SciAm article (about my speed!), and let you know. Barbour I only recently discovered via a retired architect friend who recommended End of time. cheers Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to your comment

For an AdS spacetime, for which holography is on really solid ground, the "boundary" is indeed spherical ("boundary" because it's the conformal boundary, not a true boundary). However, no one really knows how to holographically describe our universe, which appears to have a positive cosmological (non-)constant. See eg http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1129 for a recent effort at this. In general, I believe there are quite a few cases in which non-spherical holographic screens are a possibility.PhysPhD (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

PhysPhD, that was probably the most helpful comment and cite I've yet had on my talk page in this context, and I am indebted. The recent Leonard Susskind paper you provide as a reference is very helpful. As my professional work has been greatly influenced by Gödel, Escher, Bach, I was particularly grateful that Susskind invokes Escher so perfectly.

As regards "spherical"...from Susskind:

---

"The boundary of anti de Sitter space plays a key role in the ADS/CFT correspondence, where it represents the extreme ultraviolet degrees of freedom of the boundary theory. The corresponding boundary in the FRW geometry...consists of the intersection of the hat...with the space-like future boundary of de Sitter space. From within the interior of the bubble...represents space-like infinity. It is the obvious surface for a holographic description."

---

You correctly point out that while the 2-sphere-->3-sphere intuitive leap might be attractive to the point of being the "obvious surface", it is nonetheless incorrect as you say to pre-suppose that this is the only possible (or even likely) construction.

My contribution to the article will (I hope) make the topic more accessible to the lay reader, and I think (a) the "spherical" construct is indispensable in this regard, and (b) the current analogy in the lead; "if you have a room, you can model all of the events within that room by creating a theory which only takes into account what happens in the walls of the room." is quite inadequate in this regard. I will propose an alternative analogy for the intro on the talk page, and look to continue the discussion there. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss and enrich. WNDL42 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Groupthink

I like the following. Perhaps you should make it into a Scratchpad, e.g. User:Wndl4/Groupthink, and we could work it up into an article. Or a Wikipolicy :-) Pete St.John (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Symptoms of groupthink

In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Thanks Peter, I appreciate the support. I have recieved a very nice collection of e-mails in support of the Arbcom enforcement complaint where I called this out, from users either unable or otherwise unwilling to speak up at the time. Apparently this speaks to a complaint that many other good editors share but have been unable to "put the finger on" what is actually going on here at Wikipedia. Thanks again for commenting here! WNDL42 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think if good comes from this (fighting with disputatious editors), it will be enunciating some new or refined policy. I've been thinking about "Don't be a Submarine" (stealth wikisophistry, and a pun on "Don't be a Dick"), proposing a wikiproject Ethical Disputation (which sounds less catchy), etc. Pete St.John (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on my page

Just a courtesy note to let you know that I intend to add this comment to the evidence on your RfC. Just as a general observation, if you'd be willing to listen and learn from the people around you, you might do better, on a project where collaboration is the key to progress. BTW, your closing note, "Thanks for asking though" seemed disingenuous, since as I'm sure you're aware, I didn't ask you anything. I simply stated (on the Bleep talk page) my opinion that [the editor's] remark was not incivil. Woonpton (talk) 14:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have posted the following reply on your talk page. I have also (in [brackets]) modified your post here slightly -- see below.

Response to Woonpton

Woonpton, thanks for pointing out my error, I have struck and revised accordingly. When you refuted my civility assessment here, and you said "There's nothing uncivil, as I understand civility,...", well...I assumed that since you are new here you might not have been familiar with this, specifically the second bullet, and I misinterpreted your comment as an implied question. The editor I was responding to has been quite creative in his use of weasle-words to tip-toe the borders of incivility and find new ways of calling other editors "POV pushers" (as has been well and fully documented dozens of times elesewhere), so as to avoid being blocked. Now, per WP:CIVIL, we are instructed to explain incivility even though it can be controversial to do so. I posted here, and (as you will note) avoided mentioning this editor by name, in an attempt to mitigate rather than inflame.

Might I suggest that it is needlessly incendiary to bring up the editor's name as you did above. There was/is absolutely no need to reference the identity of the editor, and I am editing your comment to that effect. WNDL42 (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stenger

Hi Wndl42 - nothing to do with the What the bleep article but could you please point me - directly - at Stenger's comments regarding What the bleep? If you get time please, I would be curios to give them a quick read. Thank you. Really2012back (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. By the way, just as I was giving up that any editor on What the bleep had a sense of humour the title of your reply to me: "Hi again Really...Bleeping critics!!!" made me not only laugh but cough my cup of tea all over my keyboard. Thanks ;-)Really2012back (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV DUE

Dear Wndl42,

I thank you for your contributions concerning my proposals to get more clarity on the DUE WEIGHT issue. I've drafted new proposals, and would welcome any improvement or critique you may have! Thx,  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes Sir, thanks for your thanks, and I am indeed male, as you assumed. I greet you, --Sir Xiutwel 10:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiutwel (talk • contribs)

Thank you Wndl for your "Barnstone". I am honoured and feel humbled if I am seen as someone who can help the Wikipedia project in even the smallest way.(olive (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Bleep

Honestly, I doubt that SA will go to mediation, that has not been his style.Can you compromise on the lead in any way.(olive (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Well, I think I have offered dozens of ideas for compromise, each one rejected explicitly or stonewalled. There is no compromise on WP:NPOV, as you know, and as long as the lead flagrantly attempts to set a "tone", it will never pass WP:NPOV. Here is what I mean:

Authors set a tone in literature by conveying an emotion/feeling or emotions/feelings through words...In literature an author sets the tone through words. The possible tones are bounded only by the number of possible emotions a human being can have.

Diction and syntax often dictate what the author's (or character's) attitude toward his subject is at the time.

An example:

"Charlie surveyed the classroom of dolts, congratulating himself for snatching the higher test grade, the smug smirk on his face growing brighter and brighter as he confirmed the inferiority of his peers."

The tone here is one of arrogance, Charlie refers to his classmates as "dolts" and the quip "inferiority of his peers" shows Charlie's belief in his own prowess. The words "surveyed" and "congratulating himself" show Charlie as seeing himself better than the rest of his class. The diction, including the word "snatching", gives the reader a mental picture of someone quickly and effortlessly grabbing something, which proves once again Charlie's pride in himself. Characteristically, of course, the "smug smirk" provides a facial imagery of Charlie's pride.

I can't accept the "tone" as the current lead (and proposals) convey. Now, as two editors have clearly stated their absolute and unmoving desire for such a tone, I see no way out except for a mediation. If SA wants to kill it again (I think he'll have a hard time given all the compromises that have been offered), then so be it. WNDL42 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one of my undergrad degrees, and some of my graduate work is in Literature. I have been at this for a very long time and the tone is much improved over some other versions . I guess thats where I am on this. I could compromise, because I feel the tone is approaching neutrality in some places. Please note I do offer another version, somewhat more neutral. If you want to go for mediation go for it, but a mediation does not mean that anyone will agree with the comments from the mediator(olive (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

No. Wikipedia can't compromise on NPOV but unfortunately NPOV isn't objective... thats "the rub"(olive (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Thank you Wndl .... this looks wonderful .... I being part Celt and all...and being in pursuit of beauty(olive (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

nice Wndl .... Thanks.....mostly Scottish Celt and a little Irish, apparently.(olive (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Echo chamber

Rather than flinging a list of references at Matt's talk page, why not actually cite them in the article. It presently has only a single cite, meaning every sentence except one is uncited. That doesn't cut it.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The "echo chamber" aspects were previously cited more extensively, but the text and cites were removed. The article is now locked. The editor I was speaking to has tendentiously removed references to "echo chamber" there and at several other articles, and the editor is impervious to sources that refute his continual harping on accusations that I am pushing "original research". Now you know why I am making a plea to actually get the editor to "read" the sources. WNDL42 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you keep track of the edit diffs that deleted the citations and list those diffs in the talk page. That way you have the facts at hand.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Point is that without the diffs its just he said/she said. With them, you can show that he deleted the cites and be in a position to recreate the deleted content after the dispute is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and I understand. I've no need to "personalize" this any further by pointing out one specific editor's actions. When the article is unlocked, I will restore the "echo chamber" aspect and we can all discuss then. Thanks for your interest and welcome to the discussion. WNDL42 (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Echo chamber still needs cites and it is not locked.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Media echo chamber

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the speedy deletion tag. This is why I thought it was a test page. Also, I recommend when just starting an article putting {{inuse}} before creating the page, if you will be working on it. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

Hi, please stop edit warring at Pseudoscience, and observe WP:CONSENSUS. You may be blocked, under the three-revert rule if you continue. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Silly Rabbit, I didn't revert anyone, you reverted my edits without discussion. Please see WP:CCC and please discuss (see my entry on talk page and my edit summaries) before you revert again. Thanks! WNDL42 (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverts: [4],[5].[6] Silly rabbit (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are edits, not reverts, Silly Rabbit. For your consideration: "A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus is fixed and determined." WNDL42 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. The burden of proof is on you to show that consensus has changed. No editor needs to take your word for it. WP:CCC works both ways, and so far you are a consensus of one against two otherwise regular editors of the page in question. WP:BRD suggests that, if you are reverted, then consensus has not changed. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a content dispute. Per WP:CCC, take it to the talk page please and stop wasting your time here. Discuss before reverting is the general idea, Silly Rabbit. WNDL42 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You have it backwards. From WP:CCC: "If someone reverts your change, discuss it, and then offer another version to repeat the cycle until compromise and eventually consensus is reached." In plain terms, "If you are reverted discuss first and wait for feedback." I.e., "Don't edit war." Silly rabbit (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)