Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:54, 4 September 2005

Archives

• Personal Attacks and Other Deleted Nonsense
• Famekeeper Archive

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, The 💕! I see you've made some edits already to the slavery article. Thank you for your contributions, they have helped improve Misplaced Pages and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Misplaced Pages and decide to make additional contributions. Some valuable resources to help new Wikipedians include:

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

More on what I said at Misplaced Pages:Help desk - you can sign your name in talk pages and voting by typing three tildes (~~~). Four tildes (~~~~) signs your name and also displays the date which you signed your name. If you have any further questions, please see Misplaced Pages's help pages, add a question or comment to the village pump, or ask me on my User Talk page (click "talk" in my signature). If you're curious about this page, please see Misplaced Pages:Talk_page#User_talk_pages. Thanks for signing up! -- Rick Block (talk) July 7, 2005 03:30 (UTC)

More Personal Attacks

• • From earlier attacks, =Personal Attacks and Other Deleted Nonsense=

You, sir, are the POV Vandal

I do not appreciate your outrageous suggestion that I have committed vandalism because I wish to insert balanced information in the Ted Kennedy article. That is not vandalism and you destroy the meaning of the term when you call it such. You are a POV warrior of the worst kind and your repeated edits to revert and remove any balanced info about Ted Kennedy are much closer to the definition of vandalism. An article that refuses to mention negative parts of a politician's life does not meet any encyclopedic standard.--66.176.129.11 12:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

lying

Kind of a double standard there isn't it? Someone can lie about someone, but the other person shouldn't let it be known that he's lying? I don't agree with that at all. RJII 00:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from leaving harrassing messages on my discussion board. And please cease from declaring a consensus on the Ted_Kennedy article when no such consensus exists.--Agiantman 19:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You have once again left a harrassing message on my discussion board. Please refrain.--Agiantman 00:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Newest Personal Attack, aka Lynching

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/24.147.97.230

Hi

Hi, it's nice to see you created a user name. See you around. Howabout1 01:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

User talk:195.188.51.4 11:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your helpful information on the ÉFF article that you put at wikipedia:Help Desk. I have tried looking through the edit history but it has been somehow cleared so there is no information on who deleted my page.

Zoroastrianism

I don't have a problem with you going ahead with your proposed changes. It sounds reasonable to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

User Conduct RfC

Thank you Robert for taking on the task of creating the RfC. I have added my name to the certifying users.

In addition, you earlier removed the wikify tag and then put it back in due to my earlier comment. Reviewing the article now, I think you're right that it has been wikified extensively, so the tag can go. I think the focus now should be on cleaning up. --K. 12:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit of both. Cleanup definitely: the whole Edwardian "tender age of 5" tone. Wikifying also covers stuff like format of the intro paragraph, and the general length of paragraphs and article (currently longer than generally advised). But as I said in the Discussion, I think it needs a more radical approach. I think it would be better for the editing dynamics to scrap the lot and build it afresh, rigorously sourced: a clean break from the previous subtext that this is a mostly canonical form with a bit of leeway for arguing about wording.

It is, incidentally, quite within guidelines - see here - to rip out factually disputed unsourced material and put it on the Talk page until sources are forthcoming. Tearlach 23:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Not an admin. But very familiar with pages run by groups, companies or others that are intended to be an endorsement of the organization. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 02:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. --Nicholas 11:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Copy ] onto their page. You might want to put it on their talk page, as they might have a sub-page for barnstars or wish to choose where on their page. Howabout1 16:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Chicago

Hi. I know you're kind of new and you're trying to be bold and I commend you for this. However, I wanted to let you know that I moved the WikiProject and Peer Review templates from the Chicago article. These templates are intended to be placed on the discussion page. From Misplaced Pages:Templates, "Templates in the article namespace provide information to help readers. These can include navigation aids, or warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page." I know there was no harm intended, just wanted to let you know why I made the change. Thanks! -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Shehzad Tanweer

Robert, thanks for letting me know about the RfM. User:Sherurcij has now withdrawn it and we're going to look for another opinions instead. If you'd like to give your opinion on Talk:Shehzad Tanweer, that would be very helfpul. The issue is whether the intro should include that Tanweer was one of four bombers carrying out a joint mission, and the number who died overall. User:Sherurcij feels this is POV, and that we should refer only to the number of people Tanweer killed directly. He also feels the intro shouldn't include the CCTV image of the bombers because it's POV. I feel the intro should include reference to the number killed overall, and that including the CCTV image is not POV. Here is my version of the intro with one pic or here with two pics (I have no preference between the one- and two-pic version). Here is Sherurcij's version. But if you don't have time, don't worry. Cheers, SlimVirgin 04:20, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

PR RFC

My reading of the talk page and other material was that Pastor Russell, at the very least, thrives on conflict and attempted to lower the level of discussion and provoke others. Users who see the world in manichean terms often do this because it confirms their world view that everyone who is not with them is a member of the other side.

I hope the PR problem can be worked out, and it affirms my conviction that steps need to be taken to reduce the amount of wikistress put on good contributors. There has always been a co-dependent relationship with POV warriors, I've heard it called "pov-dependency". POV pushers fill out articles and add subjects, but they also demand that they control those subjects. As[REDACTED] moves out of early adopter and into early majority, the utility of POV warriors will grow less, since coverage will expand with the number of users.

I alos appreciate your efforts to talk to Mr. Cimini - he is another user who needs to understand that the world isn't divided into true believers and the forces of darkness. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 04:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Dualism

Within the context of[REDACTED] I think we need to have a greater explanation of assuming good faith and writign for NPOV, these are not easy concepts to get across, and a great deal of trouble could be avoided if people simply took responsibility of the NPOV of their edits - avoiding what I call "the urge to scribble a mustache" on an article - and that other edtiors may well be writing to document POVs which they don't agree with, or at least are not particular advocates for. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 15:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree - but I'm not especially hopeful of anything helping with people who are steeped in a specific worldview. For instance, there are those who sincerely believe their positive view of a topic is neutral, and therefore perceive edits toward neutrality as having a negative bias. Or, as you say, there are those stuck in a Manichean view, who don't seem able to understand that there are editors who might be coming at the topic from an effectively alien POV that doesn't align with either side. In this case, I think both apply. Tearlach 15:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Ground Rules

Any comments posted in this subsection will be deleted or moved.

Since Str1977 apologizes for filling up my space, I will state some ground rules. I would rather have disputants fill up my private space than clutter up article talk pages. No apology is required to using my space.

No apology is required from Str1977 or from J. Kenney. No apology is required from Famekeeper either. If he filibusters this page, I will archive it.

I will be glad to allow this exchange to continue, unless I conclude that anyone is embarrassing himself and that allowing him to be argued with would violate Formosa's rule. If I think that is happening, I will either create an archive page for the material that I think does the individual a disservice. Robert McClenon

Partial Answer to Questions

Famekeeper writes: "Your reference to Trent makes me fear you are another church stooge . How did you come into this- and why didn't you give a straight answer to my straight question about your history starting so soon before you jumped in as mediator-type."

I did not jump into the issue as a mediator-type. I responded to a Request for Comments and provided a third opinion. A mediator tries to stay neutral. I did not promise to stay neutral, only to respect POV and NPOV. I started out agreeing with Famekeeper more than with Str1977 about the substantive issue of Pope Pius XII's moral errors. I have now come to the conclusion the Str1977 and I agree on far more than we disagree about, including the need to be civil, and to avoid expressing points of view as proved fact.

As to my past history, I am hiding nothing. If you do not know who I am and what my history is, I see no need to help you further. Please explain why my past history is relevant to this discussion.

Famekeeper writes: "And McClenon , I'm telling you you will regret what you are doing which is to ignore the bad faith visible in the dispute , and your aid to the deeply POV. I still haven't got the will to think Str you are stupid- I can't in all honesty see that , though the english assistant helps. Maybe you are married to a native speaker, or maybe it is the agency , the effect is the agency (May 4 th Pius XII folks..)"

Famekeeper has not explained why I will regret what I am doing. I have indeed assumed good faith both by Str1977 and by Famekeeper. When you say that I will regret what I am doing, please make it clear what you are warning me about. Are you warning me that someone will exact revenge (which would be a threat), or that I will somehow be ensnared in a conspiracy, or that I am placing my soul at risk in the next world? If it is the last, then I will trust to the mercy and justice of God. If there is a conspiracy, please identify it.

My marital status is of interest to me, but not to you. Nobody has helped me with the English language for many years. I have spoken it for 55 years and have written it at an adult level for 45 years. Do not ask who is ghost-writing for me. I do owe my skills with the English language to my parents, but whether you can call my mother a ghost is a theological question. Robert McClenon 02:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I was just advised to rectify the absence upon the Holocaust page and directed to othr WP atricles . In the first two , Nazism and German History , the same rectification is required by the utter absence of the facts I sourced and justified ad infinitum under good faith . I now jsut see myself smeared as a filibusterer . This is percisely an example where you McC allow yourself to be , ot put, yourself in error. This adherence to error, in everything except the issue of my incivility will rebound to your user name . If that is something you are willing to accept , so be it . I note actions and arguments as do others . As to the marital , you would if you had perused some of the remarkably interesting history of sourcing and counter sourcing, Know that Str has a problem because those of us born into english have it trip more eassily off our tongue, and hand . He is not to be criticised , I simply refer to an agency of effort , there . It borders on the un-civil , but we do it quite regualrly as otherwise we'd die of sources . However the simple fact of the matter is that WP has at present a complete lack throughout the pages , bar Reichskonkordat and what I did on the Pius XII article that does remain. This is rectifiable in good faith . I for one would be prepared to help . I would not be able to help , if Str1977 continues this battle , a battle which is not to do with POV or MPOV or NPOV . It is to do with faith editing in his case-the very best thing to say is that he genuinely believes . But I cannot continue whilst you McC and he are subverting this NPOV effort . I adhere to wiki source rule, and argument based on pure fact . If I am wrong that this is no more than Str1977,that there is no more conspiracy against the truth, it is =NPOV history , but a reflection of a general lack of under-standing rather than ageneralised form of the evidently recognisable POV from Str , maybe . I do not expect and do nortt remove relevant material from Str or others' belief, why should he take away our history  ? I accept his view can stay in , as a reflection of what appears or did o motivate people . However I will hold your user name to be essentially required to further this WP rule above all others, that NPOV is allowed, as its explanation deserves, wherever it deserves , subject to reason and sources (proof) . So , allow that , allow a pure apology based on the willingness of Str for everything and anything necessary that he has already in POV either removing or blocking . As to the legal matters I and indeed he, have at great length discussed the various legal consequences in the ecclesiastical , UN , and civil world . We agree on one fundamental law of reason which is the biblical injunction . However the consequences following on Kaas' action and those to be recognised in NPOV fact , involve the legality of Nuremberg , of the UN and of your local country . The moral law governs all of us , according to both Str and mysself, and it certainly governs all of the WP rules . I would be quite happy to repeat that the reason of humanity is the good , and that all things , WP included , shall be controlled by reason . I have analysed reason enough and it will serve there to all persuasion. There is no WP law that the WP can over-lay on the truth . Everyone is accountable under the law, call it reason or a federal court. If a website promulgates wrong , it is accountable . As you have seen Germans are subject to various laws concerning denial , and a website would be included under this . Such speculations are simply to say that all our actions are noticed . It has taken a long time in the case of the Concordat, indeed it is apparent that even after 2005 minus 1933 years , it has been largely hidden from view but to the close student of history My recent sources make it abundantly clear that the effects were recognised in 193 and since . The WP is out of line , literally . . Do you wish to stop the sourced facts. McC ? So get the blockage under control , stop insulting me unless you enjoy it . Read what I post/ed in an expectation of good faith . If you are not concerned to understand the history , you should pass this necessity to thwart POV over to arbitration . I for one cannot edit in any way , under this blocking , reverting, insinuation, massage and whitewash . I tell you that you are now blocking me by requiring my constant sidetrack into this stupidity . I ask you to stop and study or why should I bother with you except merely as an insulter . Do it yourself , or find yourself a mentor to guide you . I can stick up for what I know to be correct , the sources, which are above WP law , and for that , held sacrosanct . That you do not understand, is your own situation , in this . Str understands evrything at stake , which is to say the reputation of his papacy . Famekeeper 14:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a WP problem . There's avast gap that can only be filled by defeating POV faith refusal to include the missing material . McC I either withdraw to as you say my own website (because WP fails on NPOV) or I await arbitration to result in censure(after civilty) of the POV blocking and the wrongful denial , or Str1977 accepts the inclusion of any and all sourced material . That is , complete justification for all so-called filibuster , FK POV smears , with a mutual apology for logic provocation by him , and giving in to it by me . Of course , perhaps the WP don't want to offend . Now when you guys send note of that , get back to me , otherwise I am not needed . I will tell the editor on Holocaust , that no I am not allowed . OK? WP can moulder without me . Famekeeper 14:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Another Request for a Summary

I have several times asked Famekeeper for a summary of the specific points about which he requests mediation or arbitration. I am still ready for a summary. I am waiting for a summary of two or three paragraphs. Exactly what are you saying is the issue about fact and POV?

Perhaps I did make a mistake in posting a page for a discussion of issues. However, if I did, then Famekeeper's pages, presented as POV, Pope's Hitler and Catholic Holocaust Conspiracy are far more biased.

I am not entirely clear what the complaints of blocking are.

Famekeeper wrote: "I ask you to stop and study or why should I bother with you except merely as an insulter. Do it yourself, or find yourself a mentor to guide you." Please clarify. If he is sincere in this claim that he is giving up on WP as a band of cyborgs, then I will not bother with him either. If you think that I need to be enlightened, then I suggest that Famekeeper either do the englightening, or find a mentor to advise me what he is trying to say. Robert McClenon 02:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Native Languages

Famekeeper made some remarks that were poorly stated about use of the English language. He appeared to be asking who was helping me read and write English. Maybe he was asking Str1977. That is not important. I can understand what Str1977 is writing. I cannot understand what Famekeeper is writing. I do not know whether Str1977 is a native speaker of English, or some other language. I have no issues with his use of this language. I do not know whether Famekeeper is a native speaker of English. He appears to be implying that he is, but he appears to have a language problem. If he does have a language problem, then he should stop embarrassing himself by posting long meaningless posts in what is supposed to be English. If he is a native speaker of English, then he should slow down and deal with his anger. Robert McClenon 02:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)==LVMI RfC== Robert - Greetings and thank you for your continued assistance in this RfC. I am writing in concern about your latest response on the Ludwig von Mises Institute RfC in which you asserted that I have "demanded that various editors recuse themselves from this commentary due to friendship with or agreement with other parties." You further characterized this as "unreasonable" and implied that I sought to exclude these participants from the RfC.

I believe that you have erroniously read my comments on the discussion page in which I drew attention to the issue of conflicts of interest. In no way was this comment intended to exclude participants from the RfC. Rather it was explicitly stated that I ONLY sought recusals of these editors in the event of mediation or arbitration on this dispute, where according to Misplaced Pages policy I am entitled to seek such recusals. Again this was not intended to apply to the current RfC and I apologize if you read it that way, however I do believe that I stated this clearly at the time, to wit:

• "Given that a situation in which personal allegiances have exhibited themselves during the dispute resolution has emerged and given the possibility that this particular dispute may require future actions under the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution process, among them mediation and, if necessary, arbitration or some further intervention, I have become increasingly concerned that the result will be to prolong the dispute itself and inhibit the reaching of a solution that is agreeable to all sides."
• "Should this indeed become the situation and should this dispute necessitate further procedures such as mediation and/or arbitration, I must request that any contributer with strong personal and/or political allegiances to either User:Willmcw, User:Cberlet or both recuse him or herself from any administrative, mediator, arbitrator, or other related third party role in subsequent steps of this dispute resolution"

Furthermore, I stated in this post that "participation of all editors is welcome on an RfC" indicating that this request for recusal was NOT intended to apply to the said persons' participation at the RfC. Given this, it appears that the position you attribute to me misrepresents my actual stated position on the subject. I do not believe you did so intentionally, and again I apologize if I was not clear enough, however I must also ask that you either retract or remove the said allegation against me as it is not representative of a position I took.

I also wish to thank you again for your help in this dispute resolution, and in light of recent events pertaining to the LVMI article, I am willing to withdraw the request for comment pending that the problematic conduct that necessitated it does not resume. Best regards, Rangerdude 06:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

LVMI RfC: Revised

Hello, Mister McClenon. I want to thank you for the courage, conviction and clarity of your revised view on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw (Note: this comment is not directly related or in response to the immediately above, but nonetheless). Yours, El_C 06:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks about the LVMI dispute. (My thanks also apply to Ted Kennedy, but I was too lazy to make a new heading.) Misplaced Pages does have a problem with people whose very strong convictions lead them to believe they could save civilization, and who proceed from there to the conclusion that uncivil behavior is perfectly justified in support of such a noble goal. I, too, hold strong opinions, but I try not to be a jerk about it. JamesMLane 13:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sexual characteristics

You asked for a summary of concerns. I've listed the items that are of concern to me on the original talk page, in response to your request, and I've put up what I think would be an ideal version of the page at User:Harmil/Sexual characteristics, with an explanation of that page and its purpose near the end of the original talk page. I very much hope that this helps to resolve the situation, but AlexR has already made it clear that he intends to boycott any attempt at such a compromise :-( -Harmil 19:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Please, then, if you make a request and then successfully deal with the matter yourself, either remove your original request or mark it as dealt with, rather than eating other people's time following up on matters already dealt with. And you ask me to look again, but aim me at a 100K+-page without indicating the section.-- Jmabel | Talk 21:19, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Didn't mean to sound harsh there. I'm perfectly glad to look into this, but you'll have to help by aiming me at something I can actually follow up. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:29, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/ComCat

The thing about the VfDs that ComCat has put up is this: they come in HUGE waves, and every single one of them has a pefunctory "NN. D." attached (indicating "non-notable, delete"). This alone is borderline abusive, as you are supposed to have a reason that you detail on the VfD page, but at first those of us voting assumed that this meant that he was doing a ton of research and dumping the resulting totaly unreasonable articles into batches of VfDs... then some of us (like myself) started finding that he was putting up a fair number of pages that were simply short or poorly formatted, but which even the most casual Google searches would show notability for (the clasic example was an Order of Canada recipient).

We're not saying "don't list things we disagree with", we're saying, "do some research after the third or fourth time someone points out that you're flooding WP with VfDs without doing so.

I hope this helps. -Harmil 23:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Maoririder

It would be a bit of a waste to respond with one sentence in the Maoririder RfC so I'll just do it here. You mentioned wondering whether or not he intended to expand the stubs or whether he hoped others would do so. To answer that, he tags every one of his contributions with {{expand}} and {{cleanup}} Soltak 00:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• I do have hope that he can be a good contributor. Hopefully this RfC will serve as the wake-up call he needs Soltak 00:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

JWales Final Responsibility re:Auschwitz Testimony Against Pope Pius XII etc

cc McClenon

I'm sorry Jimbo , but I see the responsibility to settle intractable disputes rests with you . I seem to run into intractable dispute on your WP , so I ask you to take responsibility . No one else can take this your place . I refer you to the articles Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope as the centre of this dispute and ask you to put yourself into the position of final arbiter now, OK ? I particularly think that the surviving Roman Jewess's words be taken as an issue : I wish you therefore to show or not show , that an Auschwitz survivor be called POV ( rv'd ,Pius in WWar 2) . You will see that the difference between the two articles at this minute is simple : one (PPII) is the 'censored' or whatever version of the other (H's P).

Having been battling to and beyond the brink for 8 months on the one article , I say that only you can survey this with any authority to do anything about it . Let you be the judge of all the WP requisites, knowing that your judgements are real , and that ultimately you yourself will equally be judged . Auschwitz survivors are definitely in a minority and this responsibility for arbitration I lay at you because you are the organ . I will consider myself in-active until you please let me know that I am required . As various users may find this disappearance odd , I post this letter to you for them to see elsewhere . Famekeeper 09:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Kennedy POV warrior

The same anon who's been tirelessly assaulting the Ted Kennedy article has a little venom left over for Rosemary Kennedy. The anon removes properly sourced information that tends to put Joe Kennedy, Sr. in a favorable light, and inserts irrelevancies and unsourced charges to throw mud at the family whenever possible. It would be great if you'd watchlist Rosemary Kennedy and help keep it to a good encyclopedic standard. JamesMLane 16:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane

Keep in mind that JamesMLane states in his/her profile "hostile to the right wing". This should help you understand where the above remark comes from 24.147.97.230 04:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Nikolaos_Karastathis

I have responded to your question at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Nikolaos_Karastathis#Discussion - Tεxτurε 17:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero

Ground Zero has accepted his nomination to be an admin and replied to questions at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Ground_Zero. Homey 21:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Agiantman's conduct

Beginning the RfC process at this point would be understandable, but I suggest you hold off. I've left another warning on his talk page, with links to the policies, to give him one more chance to stop his inappropriate conduct. JamesMLane 15:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps agiantman is not a sockpuppet, but him and team Anon need to be reported for their POV pushing 3rr violations. They all claim consensus for a paragraph when there is NOT such a concensus. Then they ALL accuse you and James of vandalizing. Sometimes one IP will reverted 3 times, then conveniently Agiantman will make the next revert or another IP. I would consider this to be trolling, and indicators of of possible sockpuppetry.Voice of All(MTG) 16:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

You have my sympathy, of course. You might find Agiantman's conduct on Stalin 26-29 July interesting; POV pushing (in the intro), and reversion of edit tags. This 3RR report may be a place to start: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive37#User:Agiantman

Good luck.

Septentrionalis 21:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine

You answered a RfC some time ago, about Ultramarine. Unfortunately, his behavior is now worse than it was, and I have seen no alternative but to file a request for Arbitration. I thought I should let you know. Septentrionalis 17:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon.--Agiantman 19:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

McC- I ask you to explain to me why your edit of 00.49 , 19 August upon the Hitler's Pope article is not dishonest  ? I see that your description of your edit (rm) is this : removed much biographical material that is copied from Pope Pius XII , very heavy copy editing of very badly edited article . Much more cleanup is needed.

In the most civil terms I can muster , I ask you to explain how this qualification explains your removal of several important and full non -biographical Cornwell references  ? I will expect an answer that addresses this actual question , not an answer to other questions , and not your current suggestion that what you removed now be re-inserted . You plainly were not removing "clearly biographical" information that " belonged in the biography " . It is not enough to say that this was a mistake - I can see no mistake , and I can see no justification for calling this surreptitious because mis-labelled removal a mistake .

You have not answered the short question I once previously asked you , which is how you knew to ask me about grave sin etc . The question I ask you here is very much easier - why should I not qualify your removal referred to as dis-honest  ?

If you stick to this policy of it being a mistake , then I think you warrant attention solely as an editor who arrived upon the WP simply to create Rfc's , and not with any view to the designed expansion of the WP . In which case the above Rfc against you is thoroughly justified . People who actually work to create fuller understanding by real contributions are, then ,being abused by your presence ............... Famekeeper 20:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Robert : Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I received many votes from editors that I encounter frequently, which is re-assuring, but I am honoured that you and others that I don't know through Misplaced Pages saw fit to support the nomination. The admin powers will enable me to patrol for vandals more effectively, amongst other things. I promise to use my new powers for good, and not to inflict the retribution on my enemies that they so richly deserve, as tempting as that may be. ;-) Thanks again, Kevin. Ground Zero 13:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Featured picture - comments requested

I'm nominating one of my photos for 'featured picture'. Voting isn't for two days, but I'd appreciate your comments if you feel to add them. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

For your kind note. Be well. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Rosemary Kennedy

The multiple-personality IP is back. Wife, child, family dog; don't know what it's supposed to be today. --Calton | Talk 00:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Double Action

I am still very interested in this question of yours McC :

Can you show me a canon that states that errors in dealing with double action (a difficult concept) are grave sins, warranting excommunication? Can you show me how you would address my reasonable doubts that the errors required excommunication.

This does require an answer , and as yet I do not even understand what double-action is . Perhaps you would explain a bit further ?

Oh! - and the bust is pretty (much bordering on the lustful!) Famekeeper 07:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I answered your question finally on Theology of Pope Benedict XVI . I wish you would answer questions though, to save me the necessity of behaving in your manner. I note your warnings to users around the place . I don't as yet feel I need to answer in kind , and perhaps if you would desist , I might never have to . I am sorry that you assume me to be somehow evil . Double action is the principle of double effect , and is a rule of conduct . I would like to think that logic would bring you to the position of understanding , and that I do not need to battle when it is unnecessary . Famekeeper 07:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Is the list of conditions for when an act with a bad effect may be carried out, that you put on doctrine of double effect, going to present a copyright problem? It comes from , does it not? Is there permission to use it? Evercat 18:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I should restate it. Thank you. Robert McClenon 18:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

User Famekeeper:Crisis

What does it make you think to read this headline , McC ? That is my point .Famekeeper

Thanks

Hi there! I just wanted to thank you (somewhat belatedly) for your input in this RfC; an external viewpoint which pretty much confirms what JeremyA and I have been thinking is good to see. Too often RfCs are simply an alternative battleground, but this one has at least drawn some outside comment. I remain hopeful that stinging both the editors with an RfC might make clear the distastfulness of their behaviour and avoid Arbitration. <crosses fingers>. -Splash 15:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ben's RfC

Robert, I see you've added your name as a certifier. That has to be done within 48 hours of the RfC being filed, so I don't think you can add your name now, though you can certainly add comments if it stays up. Or rather, you can add your name anywhere you want, but in terms of two certifiers and the dispute resolution evidence, that has to be done within 48 hours. Cheers, SlimVirgin 21:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, when I asked you to remove yourself from the Bensaccount RFC, I didn't mean just stop posting on that page, I mean stop trying to wiki-lawyer the legitimacy of that RFC anywhere on wikipedia. FuelWagon 15:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Please read your email

Please read your email. I have sent you a message. Newcrusade 18:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC / Monicasdude comments

I appreciate the thoughtful comments you posted on this matter. I view the RfC as an overblown personal dispute, which its proponents are inflaming by posting hyperbole and statements which are demonstrably false -- in short, a bad faith action. I don't want to be placed in the position of making a series of time-consuming responses to an ever-mutating set of complaints, as happened in the initial dispute on the Dylan talk page. I don't believe the actual nature of the dispute is accurately presented in the RfC to date, and don't believe it can be understood without going through the unpleasant debate on the talk page. I can't recall seeing a sustained barrage of personal abuse/attacks like the one user: Lulu has placed about me on the talk page. I frankly believe my restraint in this dispute has simply encouraged the proponents of the RfC to behave more outrageously. I freely acknowledge being more stubborn and contentious than many sensible users here would prefer, and being easier to provoke than I ought to be; but I also believe that the instances of my stubbornness which provoke the greatest response are those where I am insisting on the application of important Misplaced Pages policies. Monicasdude 22:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert, I would be interested in your assessment of Mdude's insistence he is being "personally abused" in these disputes. He has charged this from the beginning even though his antagonists' language, relative to the aggressions being committed by him, was really quite light. Specifically, how do you judge the early June situation which I described in my "Endorsement Caveats" to Theo's Outside View? An unknown user barrels in, completely overhauls a longstanding Featured Article, meets with silence my entreaties (made over days) to discuss, and thereby kicks off a revert war which includes some heated exchanges. Personal abuse? I ask your opinion here because I'm beginning to question my own eyes, almost like maybe I'm seeing mirages. If I really am looking at all this in such a mistaken way perhaps I should retract. JDG 19:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

I've started an RfC on the introduction. patsw 22:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount RfC

Hi Robert, I've left another comment for you here. I've decided not to delete it and have explained why there. Many thanks for your input over this. SlimVirgin 01:07, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wiki brah

I'd been doing a bit of soul-searching about this whole "Wiki brah" matter. Your note on his RfC page tipped the scales the other way for me, so I've unblocked and restored the account. Thanks for straightening out my head.  :) - Lucky 6.9 20:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Your RfC

Hi Robert, I took a look at the RfC against you and you're right, it's a farce. It also wasn't properly certified. The anon IP can't certify. Ernestocgonzalez and Antibully are clearly sockpuppets. Famekeeper and Sleepnomore certified outside the 48 hours, which ended at 15:05 August 23. The only non-sockpuppet account to have certified by that time was User:Agiantman. So I'm willing to delete this if you want me to, though judging by what you said on my page, you'd prefer not.

In future, if you have problems with sockpuppets pursuing you, contact me. Sockpuppets created to violate policy are blocked indefinitely. Anon IPs causing disruption are also blocked (unless they've made lots of useful edits). Regarding content disputes in future, try to get some good editors involved who can support you. I'd be very willing to recommend some people if you have problems again. Perhaps we can discuss a bit more next week in general about how to tighten up the RfC procedure. Cheers, SlimVirgin 05:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wash it out with Soap, your mouth

You are the bully , and daily you prove it. I will indeed, when I have the time, call for arbitration , but not about your bullying . There will be no blocking of course, but as you say it will be the only way to teach abusers what is the result of their malfeasance . Your piss arse lttle bullying is insignificant as it does not seek to radically affect presentation of truth here. I am not concerned with you except that I have archived material on my userpages concerning the Rfc against you, such that it can be resuscitated should a further action be required against your bullying. You are as you are, and welcome to yourself - a proven little liar, caught out and desperate not to look bad-in other words exactly what constitutes the typical bully . Someone insecure in themself who tries to deflect from their personal inadequacy by attacking the seemingly weak . I have proved your bullying at your own Rfc:mCClenon . Str1977 is actively intellectually dishonest , unlike yourself who is too crass not to leave an obvious trail(viz the dishonesty I irrefutably prove at yr Rfc:McClenon . I doubt very much that Mack Le Non is a real name , but you chose or it chose you well . I think you are paid to come in here to act as a bully , as I cannot see that any idealism drives you . Str1977 will have to answer for himself at the time that I choose. I have him cornered at last into an acceptance of the secret annexe, something I have been aiming for for many many months . He holds out on a misplaced working committee of 1 April with Kaasie and the Centre. Maybe Kaas did meet the Centre that day , obviously as he was their leader and had been off for a week with the popes, but that is unlike my sourcing to him , not proved to me as relevant . It is a large claim by him though, and I know why he makes it - to deflect Kaas and his friend Pacelli's guilt , and thus leave the Holy See safe from attack . However they are open to attack through the Secret Annexe of the REichskonkordat, and you have now seen that he cannot defend them there on that score, but only lay his POV open to evident wishfulness. Prudence is not a fact , but a motivation . I will skewer Str1977 on his own edits, as I skewer you and your unattractive bullying dishonesty , on your edits . I have specified these down to the minute and I openly say that you are of bad-faith as , according to your own lights , irrefutable proof is prdicate for such accusation. Go clean your mouth out with soap and say a hundred rosary's for your lie to the Misplaced Pages . You are not in danger of going to hell, but the christian who defends conscious evil , is . Now spit the soap out, kid .Famekeeper 13:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)