→Personal attacks: +link |
→Personal attacks: -WP:NPA Be WP:CIVIL, or don't be on my talk page. |
||
Line 279: | Line 279: | ||
:::::::Besides, THF, you erroneously, and in bad faith placed a FINAL warning without having given any other warnings. Try to learn the rules, and don't be [[WP:DENSE|dense]]. [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">•Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch•</font>]] 21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
:::::::Besides, THF, you erroneously, and in bad faith placed a FINAL warning without having given any other warnings. Try to learn the rules, and don't be [[WP:DENSE|dense]]. [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">•Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch•</font>]] 21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::::"''I know you saw the apology, because you responded to it on ANI.''" - that's what you call an ''apology''? You "apologised" for hitting the wrong button on "Twinkle", not for engaging in personal attacks against me. So, what...having "hit the wrong button by mistake" you were then compelled (by Twinkle?) to post an additional personal attack on my user page? Anyway, that doesn't change the fact that |
|||
:::::::As for "exonerated" - "[[Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#THF|Try requests for comment or requests for arbitration]]" doesn't constituted exoneration, it's a chastisement, and [[WP:COI/N#Sicko]] is unresolved. But you don't need me to tell you that. But then, as I have said, I wouldn't want you to lose your job. Anyway, you have followed it up with ''further'' disregard for COI by editing the Regnery article and deleting all sorts of content for reasons that, well...let's just say your allegations don't bear much of a resemblance to the truth. But that would be redundant. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::This is incorrect. The editor was aware of the BLP issue on the talk page, and deleted a commented warning on the mainspace page in making his edit. He was aware of the flagrant BLP violation, and chose to edit-war anyway. But since I have apologized for the incivility, this '''fifth''' warning for the same single action, while the original editor's misconduct goes both unaddressed and unapologized for, seems especially excessive. [[User:THF|THF]] 21:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
::::::::This is incorrect. The editor was aware of the BLP issue on the talk page, and deleted a commented warning on the mainspace page in making his edit. He was aware of the flagrant BLP violation, and chose to edit-war anyway. But since I have apologized for the incivility, this '''fifth''' warning for the same single action, while the original editor's misconduct goes both unaddressed and unapologized for, seems especially excessive. [[User:THF|THF]] 21:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:01, 29 August 2007
Thanks for reverting the vandal's edit. Kai A. Simon 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Criticism of atheism reversion
Thanks, Ted, for your vigilant reversion of two edits by 68.6.209.141 - you marked your own edit as minor, but had the previous edits stayed, they would have effected a major loss. -- Jmc 06:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Nelson Frank
Is your grandfather the reporter Nelson Frank? Just curious and you don't have to tell me if he was. Vassyana 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Why? --TedFrank 11:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Spurred by the AFD discussion, I looked out of curiousity. It seems he actually is notable. ;o) He was quite an active figure during the Red Scare, often cited by commentators and government officials of the time. It was actually interesting reading. Also, I found that I admire his rhetorical talent. As a writer, I really enjoyed reading his skillful use of language. You've got some excellant literary genes in you. o:-) Be well!! Vassyana 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have to get back to library to find some of the references, but I'll gladly send you what I could find. Give me a day or two to compile some notes. If I neglect this (that is you don't receive a mail from me by Thursday), please drop me a reminder on my talk page. Sorry for the delay, I just researched it out of my own curiousity, not intending to keep notes. Cheers! Vassyana 17:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
ANI
Thanks for fixing the noticeboard. I was about to start doing the same thing, after seeing the edit that annihilated 8 days of threads: these kinds of repairs are difficult and fraught with edit conflicts because the place is so active. There is a bug that sometimes causes previous threads to disappear (it's happened to me on ANI) but I'm not sure that's what happened here. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
First, thanks for the cleanup. The account is indefinitely blocked, dozens of vandalism edits over months. However, in my research of those edits, I found one which may be correct, possibly just by chance - this edit seems to actually have the correct information per this site. Do you know anything about it, or by chance, can you read Farsi/Persia/whatever check out the University of Yazd official page? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- [This English-language site says 1987]. Color me stumped. -- TedFrank 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Liebeck
Thanks for pointing that out; it was a wretched way to say "tort reform". For whatever it's worth, I think you've done an excellent job editing. Few editors announce their potential biases so clearly as you do on the talk page, and I find that admirable.
Incidentally, I happen to be a student at the University of Chicago Law School. Cool Hand Luke 06:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just make any edits you see fit; you seem to have a good grasp of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I'll keep an eye on tort reform though. I just spent over an hour reading it and checking citations, and you're right that it's POV. It's not even formatted very well. I support any improvements you can make. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
apology for my behavior towards you
I deeply apologize for my April 3 personal attack on you on the talk page of the Israel Shahak article. I particularly regret having written: "If you feel you can't be objective about this article, move somewhere else. There's plenty of work to be done in Wikipedia." You were right to refer to this outburst as an act of bullying, seeking to chase you from the page. You have written: "I hope admins don't reward that sort of bullying". You will not be petty to seek administrative sanctions on me for this statement.
Again, i'm very sorry for my part of that altercation. It's no secret, that my opinions about the way the Shahak article should appear is vastly different from yours. I also disagree with you on a number of other substantial issues. But that's no excuse for me to treat you aggressively, as i did. I believe our joint collaboration on this article, along with the many other fine editors, may actually benefit the article, by promoting, in the course of time, the article's balance, as per Wikipedia's NPOV ideal. Itayb 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. Thank you. I am all for a balanced article. For example, I recognize that there are reliably sourced defenders of Shahak that Wikipedia requires be cited, even though I find their views abhorrent and bigoted. I hope that we can reach a consensus on an NPOV article, and I appreciate the apology. I have no intention of seeking administrative sanctions. -- THF 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your selfless and gentlemanly reply. :) Itayb 22:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page :)
I didn't even notice this [1] until I looked at that users history. I give you a big smile :-). ~AFA Imagine I swore. 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Concerned person (talk · contribs)
and all socks have been blocked indefinitely. If this user posts further rants on your talk page or elsewhere, you can post a notice to WP:AIV for immediate blocking. Thanks for your patience, OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Andijan massacre
Hi, When you get a chance, please take a look at the last few edits I made to Andijan massacre. The only controversial thing I did was merging the press section into the May 13 section. I felt it was not important/long enough to merit a separate section. Is that alright? KazakhPol 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll take a look this weekend. //THF 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank for your input on this article's entry at WP:COIN. I don't know enough about the college game to know who or what is notable. Can you place a delete tag on the article? Bearian 02:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Much thanks...
Just wanted to stop by to thank you for your help in undoing many of those vandalism edits! That was about a days-worth of my WikiLife.... Thank you, thank you, thank you.... — MusicMaker 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Unbalanced tag
I'm leaving you a note out of good will and in good faith, in the hope that we can work together to resolve the unbalanced tag dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've mostly worked on expanding and cleaning up the synopsis section. At this time, it is 839 words in length, which is acceptable according to WP:FILMS guidelines. If there are any outstanding issues with the synopsis, or areas you would like to see developed/expanded/corrected, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 05:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- The guidelines actually say between 400 and 700 words, and my version was at the high end of that, but in the interests of compromise, I'm not going to make a fuss over an extra 100 words. I'm stepping away from WP for a few days, and I hope the broad strokes of that consensus are retained by other editors in my absence. Thanks for your patience, good-faith efforts, and willingness to compromise. THF 06:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words. The guidelines are speaking of an average plot length, and plot lengths for films just under 900 words are very common and rarely controversial. Take a look at Category:FA-Class film articles. A random sample of five out of 51 featured film articles gives the following plot lengths:Casablanca, 697; Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, 761; V for Vendetta, 812; Borat, 838; and Jaws, 886. As of this post, Sicko has 834 words in the plot section. If you have any interest in getting further clarification on this matter on the film project discussion page, I'll join you. —Viriditas | Talk 11:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- FYI...There's a discussion in progress at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Plot_synopses_too_long.3F. —Viriditas | Talk 11:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words. The guidelines are speaking of an average plot length, and plot lengths for films just under 900 words are very common and rarely controversial. Take a look at Category:FA-Class film articles. A random sample of five out of 51 featured film articles gives the following plot lengths:Casablanca, 697; Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, 761; V for Vendetta, 812; Borat, 838; and Jaws, 886. As of this post, Sicko has 834 words in the plot section. If you have any interest in getting further clarification on this matter on the film project discussion page, I'll join you. —Viriditas | Talk 11:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- The guidelines actually say between 400 and 700 words, and my version was at the high end of that, but in the interests of compromise, I'm not going to make a fuss over an extra 100 words. I'm stepping away from WP for a few days, and I hope the broad strokes of that consensus are retained by other editors in my absence. Thanks for your patience, good-faith efforts, and willingness to compromise. THF 06:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping keep the NPOV. I know we can't wander over to pure SPOV, but science certainly isn't supportive of this diagnosis. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Reply WP:CIVIL
I wasn't stirring the pot or making personal attacks. His inability to take responsibility for his own actions is childish, and should be brought to his attention for the good of the community. I'm not going to add my comment on his page back, as long as he's read it that's all I can do and it's up to him to grow.►Chris Nelson 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your edits to the above page. You may be aware that the freemason reference was the subject of dispute (albeit not directly through the article talk page). Your edit seems to have assuaged the disputor, as it has not been further reverted. I am also happy with the edit, as the other party in the dispute, so I thank you for your input on this. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 09:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
A star for you
You don't know me; at least I don't think you do. I have been watching Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and noticed the comments about you and Michael Moore. I made a comment there and I hope I didn't make a fool out of myself there. But I am strongly against outing of editors like Moore has done with you. If you have any problems with what I have said then please by all mean tell me on my talk page and I will make corrections or delete it. I am not sensitive to criticism at all and I am just trying to help stop this kind of stuff. Oh by the way, I like the movies that he makes thought I haven't seen Sicko yet but I do look foreward to seeing it. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 21:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Sicko pages
I've been looking over your attempts to get to NPOV on the page -- nice job. But I disagree with (a) cutting down the "plot summary" section, and (b) cutting down the criticism from an article to a mere section of the movie. The movie got millions of people to think about health-care, which many have said is the No. 1 domestic issue in the presidential campaign so far (I'm not sure about that but it's certainly one of the top issues). The movie also generated quite a debate over the points that it made. There's an interesting consensus on some points: Critics of Moore agreeing that the U.S. healthcare system is a mess; people on the left criticizing Moore's lack of balance.
To adequately describe the controversy, a separate article is needed. Thanks for being polite, but if you disagree that the controversy article is not worthwhile, I'd rather hear your reasons for that instead of a suggestion to just summarize it. Don't patronize.
Also, the critical response section (film reviewers) in the article as it stands now simply gives one-liner, drive-by blurbs when critical analysis is more useful to the reader. We don't need 19 critics saying the same thing, each in one line (I'm exaggerating, but not much); we need to show consensus opinion among critics, particularly major critics, and that gives the reader some insight, even in a relatively short space. Since the critical response blends in with the political response, it is best presented in the "Controversy about" article. The details in the "plot summary" section, which I had added and which have since been deleted, were useful for anyone actually interested in understanding (or perhaps trying to remember) the many, many, many details that Moore piled on in the movie. How anyone (you?) thinks a shorter summary is more valuable is something I don't understand. I can see a three-paragraph summary version with subsections, but not the vague summary that exists now.
You talk about smb's "invitation" to add to the article. I've dealt with smb. He's proven himself or herself to be a total partisan. I have not seen one edit by him or comment by him that didn't attempt to show Moore in the best light. For all I know, he is Michael Moore. He's shown himself to be a propagandist. I'm an editor who's added positive and negative information because I want to get at the truth. What are you?
Sorry if I sound angry. I am. I'm not walking it off. Noroton 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not a quote farm" Now you're talking. I guess I could exaggerate in the same way you just have ... but it's not worth it. When quotes work, they're worth using. If you have a more exact criticism, that might be useful. My mind is open. Noroton 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand your quote farm comment or what you think I exaggerated.
- As for your desire for what the article should include, I agree that the drive-by criticism in the article is inadequate. That's why I keep suggesting you merge the articles. Not summarize. Merge, so no content is lost: after all, there was a consensus to merge the pages, and Smb keeps telling you that's what he wants. If stuff gets deleted from the merged Sicko page that you think should stay, then people can discuss that.
- But maybe what you're looking for is a Debate over United States healthcare policy in the 2008 election article? Or a Sicko and the United States healthcare policy debate article? I can't promise you if you create either of those they won't be deleted. For all I know, an article with a similar but different name on the same subject already exists.
- I've found smb to be partisan, also. But he eventually accedes to consensus when WP:DR disagrees with him. There is a consensus that the plot summary should be under 900 words, and a consensus that there shouldn't be a separate article. (Though, given the history of the Fahrenheit 9/11, I suspect if you add enough reliably sourced material about the movie, Moore partisans will be asking to move it back to the separate article.) The problem with the latter consensus, is that the agreement was to merge the articles, and then the articles didn't get merged. You should be bold and do that.
- Please don't ask accusatory questions like "I'm an editor who's added positive and negative information because I want to get at the truth. What are you?" It's not civil and implies that you are not assuming good faith. I'm trying to help you. We both want an NPOV article, right?
- If you're angry, WP:COOL. It's Wikipedia and not worth getting angry over. Moreover, getting angry is always always always counterproductive to whatever it is you are trying to accomplish. Here, you're about to alienate an editor who could be on your side.
- If you think Smb is acting in bad faith, don't make personal attacks; make edits that conform to consensus and to policy. Then, if Smb reverts, he will demonstrate bad faith. If Smb is actually POV-pushing, and you have the diffs to prove it, then WP:RFC will solve the problem. But right now, if a third party were to look at what is happening, they would see Smb protecting the talk-page consensus, and you edit-warring and being uncivil about it. And if Smb is the one that's actually in the wrong, then your edit-warring only makes it easier for Smb to be wrong. Adhere to WP:BRD and no one can legitimately question you. THF 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If you didn't like the YouTube links, you could have put the CNN links... BTW, why is a $400/hr attorney editing Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryLambda (talk • contribs) 19:43, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Hi. What are you writing about for the WSJ (and when do you expect it to be done/published)? I used to read the WSJ quite often, but not very much anymore. ~ UBeR 03:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's done (subject to fact-checking and editing), but they have a backlog of op-eds on legal issues, so it may be a week before it goes live. THF 03:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Alright thanks. Do you think you could be so bothered to let me know when it's published? ~ UBeR 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll mention it on my blog, and a free version will be available on the thinktank website, but I'll try to drop you a line. THF 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
award
File:Resilient-silver.png | The Resilient Barnstar | |
Okay, you melted my heart. Let's bury it (the hatchet, not my heart). David Shankbone 03:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
Wow. Cool Hand Luke 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- What amazes me are the number of hate emails I get calling me fat. (That's what I get for skipping the opportunity for a photo reshoot after I lost forty pounds.) If fat is a relevant issue for them, why are they reading Michael Moore? Seriously: not a single cogent or coherent email. And it amazes me that the only consequence from all of this is that User:Noroton ended up with a 24-hour block from making the mistake of believing that Wikipedia rules meant what they said. THF 03:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Noroton has been unblocked. - Crockspot 04:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I can't believe the BS with MM.com, i've just spent days clearing up after Amnesty and the CIA and now MM brings his sicko project to battle on wikipedia. Wikipedia does need to start to defend itself in the real world from the threats it faces now and those in the future. The funniest thing is being threatened with a short bit on the Colbert Report OOOOHHHHH!!! (Hypnosadist) 04:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- What amazes me are the number of hate emails I get calling me fat. (That's what I get for skipping the opportunity for a photo reshoot after I lost forty pounds.) If fat is a relevant issue for them, why are they reading Michael Moore? Seriously: not a single cogent or coherent email. And it amazes me that the only consequence from all of this is that User:Noroton ended up with a 24-hour block from making the mistake of believing that Wikipedia rules meant what they said. THF 03:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[[
AFD followup
It seems to me that AfD is probably not the way to go. I've posted on the Sicko talk page, going through the motions which I doubt will get any kind of a fair hearing at all. Would you recommend an RFC or any particular way of going about an RFC? Noroton 19:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- As I've said several times, why not try to merge the pages? I think the act of merger would demonstrate your point of the need of a legitimate content fork than skipping that intermediate step would. Don't forget to add John Stossel's criticism.[2], [3] If you run into trouble with the merger, and Swatjester can't help you, then you can go to the RFC process. Because Wikipedia policies against harassment and canvassing aren't being enforced, I'm going to focus on other pages. THF 19:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a merge lose a lot of content? Or are you suggesting I retain all or the vast majority of the content? If I'm going to lose three fourths of it, I'd rather not succeed in a merger. Noroton 20:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Retain the vast majority of the substantive notable sourced content, to the extent doing so is defensible. THF 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- A no-answer answer. Noroton 14:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
request for your opinion
Hey - I'd really like to know your opinion on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Couey
I nominated it for deletion based on our earlier discussions. Obviously I see big differences between Syring and Couey - one was a public servant, the other a simple nut-job. :) I'd really like to know if you think my reading of WP:Notability is on the mark here, or if I'm missing something. Popkultur 19:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Why I am not going to get a new account
THF: If I were in your position, I might consider officially abandoning this account and starting a new anonymous user. Your openness about your POV and associations is admirable, but unfortunately, such openness only subjects you to ad-hominem attacks. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that anonymity eliminates ad-hominems and allows for a purely intellectual exchange without all the background noise of false COI allegations.
You could retire this account and disclose that you'll be back eventually with a new anonymous account. I don't see any problem with doing this if you disclose that fact beforehand and never edit as THF again. You might also want to avoid articles you've edited previously as THF, but there's plenty to do here so I'm sure you could find articles to work on. :-)
(You might want to run it by an admin to be sure it's OK first, if you decide to do it. I have some experience here, but others know more and could better advise you should you go that route)
Just my $0.02.
ATren 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice, which has been offered by a number of others. But I disagree that this is the best course of action:
- I haven't done anything wrong, administrators agree that I haven't done anything wrong, and going away now in response to these attacks would be viewed as a concession that there was something shameful about my behavior.
- Going away and ceasing editing any of the thousands of different articles I've edited is encouragement to use the same intimidation tactics against other editors, including the hypothetical future anonymous THF account.
- I simply don't believe that Wikipedia will (or can) protect my anonymity in a new anonymous account. People with far less distinctive styles and public prominence than me have been outed. Too many people with axes to grind and nothing to do will sit down and compare thousands of edits to find the stylistic tics that will naturally be revealed--and then I'll be accused of bad-faith COI and sock-puppetry because I didn't disclose my identity. My legitimate edits are being spun dishonestly by left-wing blogs now--I mean, look at the conspiracy theories that are going on now, such as the theory that Merck hired my law firm in 2004 because they hoped I would quit that job and edit a Wikipedia article about a movie about healthcare in 2007. If I take your tactic, it will be falsely portrayed that I was forced from Wikipedia for bad conduct and tried to sneak back on.
- If I leave, any new editor who is conservative (including the hypothetical future anonymous THF account) will be accused of being me in disguise, even if they are not. So I get the worst of both worlds: I'll be driven from Wikipedia, but blamed for edits that I am not making.
- If Wikipedia would just enforce its policies and guidelines evenly, there would be no problem. Thank you for your suggestion, and for your defense of Wikipedia ideals. THF 18:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You make several very good points here - leaving and coming back may indeed create more problems than it solves. It seems you may have thought this out more thoroughly than I did. :-) In any case, you seem to be able to maintain NPOV despite your admitted political leanings, so as long as you keep doing that, this false controversy should subside. Good luck. ATren 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)wi
Yeah, I agree. I don't think that leaving and starting a new account would be helpful in dealing with your recent problems. But anyway, I was wondering if you would you like me to delete the history of your userpage? Sarah 20:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's done. And don't worry, it's in no way a cover-up. Lots of people make the mistake of adding too much information when they're new and then later end up asking to have it deleted. It's also nice to have a clean slate from the vandalism. :) If you want it deleted again when you take down that mm message or have changed any other information, just leave a message on my talk page and I'll do it straight away. Sarah 20:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Portrait for Wikipedia
Dear Mr. THF,
I am a portrait artist for Wikipedia, and I write to ask if I may I do your portrait for the article about you and your life found on the website as part of my Prominent Attorneys series? I have taken the portraits of Derrick Bell, Floyd Abrams, Martin Scorsese, Drew Barrymore, Frank McCourt (and his brother Malachy, Jim McGreevey and over 250 other prominent entertainers, artists, authors, activists, attorneys, politicians and poets for the site. I promise it will be more flattering than the AEI portrait. Holla next time you're in NYC!
Best regards, David Shankbone --David Shankbone 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hm
Mr Tetrahydrofuran, although you do not "work for" a pharmaceutical company, is it fair to say that you have, on at least one occasion, acted as a paid advocate for a pharmaceutical company in court?
I'm simply trying to get things straightened out. DS 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- In 2005, when I worked for a different employer, I performed legal work for a pharmaceutical manufacturer who had been falsely accused of violating the law in products-liability litigation. My work mostly involved issues of federal jurisdiction, the scope of protective orders in document discovery, procedural aspects of multi-district litigation, conflicts of laws issues, and class action certification. You are surely not suggesting that I have a conflict of interest with all of the clients and business partners of all of my former employers, because that would suggest that only teenagers and the habitually unemployed can edit Wikipedia articles. Please discuss at WP:COI/N#Sicko if this does not assuage your concerns. Thanks for asking, and have a nice day! THF 23:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am not making any suggestions about whether you do or do not have a conflict of interest, as I frankly don't know enough about the situation. However, I would point out that the perception of conflict of interest can be significant, since a lawyer is typically paid to champion a particular point of view, rather than neutrality. As such, it is typically wisest for individuals who wish to edit Wikipedia in such circumstances to make full disclosure about their potential conflict.
- I would also point out that your statement about "teenagers and the habitually unemployed" strikes me as disingenuous. We have many contributors who are themselves lawyers; at least one such is also an administrator. On more than one occasion, he has (informally) recused himself from editing an article because he felt that there might be a conflict of interest. DS 02:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- But, he has fully disclosed, and all he's gotten for it is grief! Meanwhile, thousands of other anonymous users hide their POV (because they can) and nobody questions them one bit. Is it just me that is bothered by the fact that we come down hardest on those who happen to be the most forthcoming? Is it any wonder that this editor is attempting to dissociate from his true identity, after all the unfounded accusations he's been subject to solely because of who he is? I've still not seen a single troublesome diff from him.
- All I can say is, I'm glad I registered anonymously after seeing the way Wikipedia treats people who are forthcoming about their own identity and beliefs. ATren 02:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- ATren, while your concern about anonymity and how editors are treated is noted, I have found that Wikipedia is generally quite civil as a whole to those who disclose their identity and beliefs. I have edited with those from all belief systems and philosophies, and almost always with no issues. The problem is when those beliefs or associations affect how one edits, which is why Pastordavid is an administrator and Jason Gastrich is banned. It is why Agapetos angel is banned - and please note Agapetos angel did not reveal her identity, but was nevertheless banned for editing contrary to COI - although I believe this was before COI was written, and the specifics were for edit warring, POV, etc. Agapetos angel was one of those "thousands who hide their POV" and yet was banned. In short, I think that although the concerns you raise are valid, they are misapplied in this case. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with what you are saying, and that's why I am still waiting to see one diff that shows problematic editing on the part of THF. I'm not saying there are none - I haven't interacted with THF much so I honestly don't know - but if there are, then the people making the COI accusations should provide those diffs for us to examine. If they don't, then it's hard for me not to assume that this is more about who he is than what he's done. ATren 03:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- ATren, while your concern about anonymity and how editors are treated is noted, I have found that Wikipedia is generally quite civil as a whole to those who disclose their identity and beliefs. I have edited with those from all belief systems and philosophies, and almost always with no issues. The problem is when those beliefs or associations affect how one edits, which is why Pastordavid is an administrator and Jason Gastrich is banned. It is why Agapetos angel is banned - and please note Agapetos angel did not reveal her identity, but was nevertheless banned for editing contrary to COI - although I believe this was before COI was written, and the specifics were for edit warring, POV, etc. Agapetos angel was one of those "thousands who hide their POV" and yet was banned. In short, I think that although the concerns you raise are valid, they are misapplied in this case. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
All the crap you're getting recently.
Just wanted to let you know that you have my sympathy and moral support, even if I've not found the right way to give active support in discussions yet. Even though our politics couldn't be much further apart, I think that the attacks on you are, in many cases, rather hypocritical. Despite being a dirty lefty, I think it's inexcusable that left-wing COI and POV-pushing are tolerated to a much greater extent than right-wing ones. SamBC(talk) 15:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Waving the white Flag
Sorry to hear that you giving up but you have real life worth much more than your ctitics so you still win in the end. (Hypnosadist) 20:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The "notable Wikipedian" link
I think that's the right move, given the shitstorm people made over that link and your identity. I am personally repulsed by the insistence of some editors to reveal your name, after you explicitly requested them not to, and I was more than happy to argue against that tactic. The fact that you've ultimately relented on some points does not invalidate the merits of the argument. ATren 15:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sicko merger
I had some concerns about the merger myself, but admittedly I haven't kept up with it as I was distracted by other issues. If you tell me what the problem is, then perhaps I can help out. Mind you, I don't think every notable person who has a point of view on the subject needs inclusion, but every notable point of view does. --David Shankbone 19:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree on that. It's points of view that are relevant, not individuals.
- Turtlescrubber sanitized the page.
- Ripe restored some of it, but you can see that much content has been lost, relegated to footnotes that Ripe indicates on the talk page that he intends to delete later. Some of the footnotes have nothing to do with the criticisms, and are there for POINTy reasons to encourage others to delete the whole thing.
- I'm not endorsing the Noroton version, which I never had a chance to look at. THF 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Which points of view are not included? You don't have to give long explanations or descriptions, something like, "Nothing about Cuba being crap" kinds of statements will do. --David Shankbone 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Notable points of view omitted, off the top of my head:
- The WHO rankings measure whether a country's medical system is socialized, not whether it is good. (Stossel)
- Inaccurate portrayal of Canada. (Gratzer, Howell, Pipes, others)
- Inaccurate portrayal of Great Britain. (Reinhoudt, others)
- Inaccurate portrayal of Cuba. (Lowry, Smith, others)
- Inaccurate portrayal of France. (Elder, Loder, Reinhoudt, others)
- Failure to acknowledge any tradeoffs. (Mitchell, others)
- Stale anecdotes of marginal relevance. (Freudenheim, others)
- 45 million number misleading. (Elder, Tanner, many many others)
- Inaccurate portrayal of socialized US services (Stossel)
- Failure to account for benefits of competition (Tanner)
- Kaiser inaccurately portrayed. (Kaiser)
- THF 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Notable points of view omitted, off the top of my head:
- Which points of view are not included? You don't have to give long explanations or descriptions, something like, "Nothing about Cuba being crap" kinds of statements will do. --David Shankbone 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, just reviewing this casually, #1 appears to be more a criticism of the WHO rankings than Moore. 2, 3, 4, and 5 should be in, but they an be lumped together. I need to consider the others. --David Shankbone 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for trying to help with Rosalind Picard. Please check out Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". At least one of the other articles has the exact paragraph about the anti-evolution petition as Ms Picard's. (p.s. I checked them all. Only James Tour has the exact same wording.) Steve Dufour 04:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Calling good faith edits vandalism is a violation of our policy on personal attacks. Refrain from doing so in the future. In addition, if you believe you have a case, make it. Don't issue threats. Thanks. Guettarda 14:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- The case was made. You ignored it in bad faith, and edit-warred to violate WP:BLP, and then committed a far worse violation of WP:NPA. THF 14:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, no case has been made. And, even if you see my comments as a violation of NPA (which I don't think they are, since they are a comment about your employer, not you personally) that doesn't make it ok. "But he did it too..." doesn't work out of elementary school, not in the real world. Guettarda 15:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- This edit qualifies as not assuming good faith, at a minimum, and probably a personal attack. You could be right on the blog idea, but identifying the edit as vandalism is just plain rude. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is now the fourth time someone has given me a warning for a single edit summary that I have acknowledged was overaggressive and that I apologized for, and meanwhile, Guetterda has suffered no consequences for far more serious violations of NPA, CIVIL, and edit-warring BLP, all of which occurred in disregard of warnings. Some proportion is requested. (And I did assume good faith. The assumption was lost only after the editor edit-warred against multiple editors in contravention of BLP, after repeated reference to the rule he was violating. The accusation of failing to assume good faith also fails to assume good faith.) THF 15:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Apologised for? Really? I just see threats followed by threats on my talk page, not a withdrawal of your personal attack. As for "my" personal attacks - making fun of your employer is not a "personal attack", undoing your whitewash is not edit-warring (in fact, a few seconds of googling strongly suggests that you have a conflict on interest on the article anyway, since you seem to be a close associate of at least one RP-published author; considering that you have already been chastised for COI violations, you shouldn't be editing, let alone white-washing the RP article). In fact, you were the one who edit-warred (I made a case for my edits, you haven't bothered to), and, more importantly, it isn't a BLP issue at all. Your characterisation of the situation is totally inaccurate. Maybe if you chose to portray matters accurately...but no, I already said that's an unreasonable request on my part. Guettarda 17:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- The false statement that I have been "chastised for COI violations" is yet another personal attack: I was exonerated. See WP:COI/N#Sicko. I know you saw the apology, because you responded to it on ANI. (Thus, vis-a-vis "portraying matters accurately, please see WP:KETTLE.) THF 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Besides, THF, you erroneously, and in bad faith placed a FINAL warning without having given any other warnings. Try to learn the rules, and don't be dense. •Jim62sch• 21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is incorrect. The editor was aware of the BLP issue on the talk page, and deleted a commented warning on the mainspace page in making his edit. He was aware of the flagrant BLP violation, and chose to edit-war anyway. But since I have apologized for the incivility, this fifth warning for the same single action, while the original editor's misconduct goes both unaddressed and unapologized for, seems especially excessive. THF 21:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
<ri>"This is incorrect. The editor was aware of the BLP issue on the talk page, and deleted a commented warning on the mainspace page in making his edit." Over the course of your whitewash, you gave all sorts of reasons for deleting content. I explained why your reasoning was incorrect in all cases.
"He was aware of the flagrant BLP violation, and chose to edit-war anyway." You alleged BLP violations about a company, just like you claimed that other sources "failed RS" when they clearly didn't. None of your justifications were true.
"But since I have apologized for the incivility, this fifth warning for the same single action, while the original editor's misconduct goes both unaddressed and unapologized for, seems especially excessive." You have yet to apologise for your personal attacks. Your only "apology" was for "hitting the wrong button"...you haven't apologised for your abuse of templates to engage in personal attacks. Guettarda 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- You mischaracterize my ANI apology, which apologized for my incivility. Again, I apologize for my use of templates to incivilly criticize edits that violated Wikipedia policy, though I in good faith believe that you should have been blocked under WP:BLP#Blocking for repeated intentional violations.
- The edit "Blog X says Person Y did a bad job at Company Z" plainly violates BLP even if it is in the Company Z article, and any claim to contrary is tendentious. I am disengaging from the content dispute over the rest of the Regnery Publishing page; even though I am right, and the page is an appalling POV-pushing violation of NPOV and WEIGHT, Wikipedia is a hobby, not a full-time job, and I do not have time to fight each of the thousands of instances of NPOV violations on the site. A shame: as someone once said elsewhere, Wikipedia rewards persistence over accuracy. THF 21:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)