NathanLee

Welcome!

Hello, NathanLee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  from a fellow wmUsers.com person --rogerd 14:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your note

I did explain in the comment. The material is repetitive, inappropriately sourced, and reads like a personal opinion. Much of it is already in the article anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not: the video section was full of mistakes and bad form. The material I added referenced 60 minutes transcript (is that a private site) and you added back in quotes that are more in place on a PETA promotion pamphlet than an encyclopedia. Show me another decent article where that style is appropriate. This is wikipedia, not an advertising leaflet.

3RR

As you're reverting, this is to warn you about the 3RR policy, which says we're not allowed to revert more than three times in 24 hours. You can review it at WP:3RR. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on article talk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

try using a more fine grained approach if you have an issue. I dispute that all the content needs to be undone. You are undoing multiple layers of work and getting rid of referenced material that does not reference a private site.

I'd refer you to the Revert only when necessary. It seems like you constantly revert things for reasons outside valid revert criteria. NathanLee 10:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

References

The main problem with this encyclopedia is the sheer volume of unreferenced information. In order for us to improve its reputation (as most people would call wikipedia unreliable) I believe a hard stance should be taken. However, as you added an unreferenced piece of information into an article, you must have ignored the policy we have regarding verifiability.

Also, having just had a look at the reference you provided (which is an internal reference, which isn't allowed...), even if I overlook that problem and use the reference in the other article, that site 'things.org' is not a reliable source. It is, by its own declaration, a set of personal sites, which do not pass WP:V/WP:RS.

Also, the way the sentence is written, without a direct reference to back up the wording, is original research, as it is synthesis of 2 known facts in order to draw a conclusion. I will remove this info again until a reliable source can be found, and it can be written in a suitable manner.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Determining what is a "reliable source" is rather arbitary. The PETA article is pretty much entirely made out of information from PETA's site itself. Is that not a "personal" and "unreliable" source? As for information on TV shows and the like: it is unlikely there will ever be a reliable source other than fan sites. NathanLee 10:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And as such we cannot post that information as it is from fansites. We have policies and guidelines which cover these problems, namely WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. Personal sites are not verifiable and therefore are not acceptable. As the article itself is about PETA, they are an acceptable source about their organisation and the activities they have taken part in.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everyone who disagrees with you must be the same person. I have to ask you yet again to stop leaving notes on my talk page, but to direct them to the article talk page instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with your uncivil comments

NathanLee, your comments on the talk page of the PETA article are simply disruptive and not helping anyone. Please stop. If you continue then I am pretty sure you'll end up being blocked by one of the many admins that edit that article.

Your assumptions regarding whether SlimVirgin is Crum375 fall down very quickly when you compare contributions of the 2 - with their being significiant posts on different articles at the exact same time. That seems like an awful lot of effort to go to... So, as I said before assume good faith. Just because you were reverted doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to prevent your information being added. Reasons have been given - live with them and move on. Improve your writings, provide better sources and I'm sure no-one will complain. Everyone gets reverted at times, its how the site works.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an accusation pulled out of the air: check the revision history and pick any day you like and compare the log-in times. Also the types of pages they work on and the fact that another user was confused enough by their duplicate behaviour to think the same thing. I wasn't making an unfounded accusation, just an observation that they appear to be tag team multiple users. I stand by my statement that SlimVirgin is being biased also when all original complaints about the content were dealt with: it was still an issue. Check the change log on the factory farming page that slimvirgin contributed to if you think that that too is unfounded. Assume good faith does not mean "excuse all bias" NathanLee 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Assume good faith means 'don't take a single, perceived, idea and use that as a standing point to rant at other editors'. Your persistent come backs about the removal of your posted material, regardless of the reasons given, makes people believe that you are not there to present a neutral and helpful input on the article. I would go as far as to say that some will see it as disruptive. I would urge you to take Ramdrakes sound advice and also when you come back, ignore the old troubles and try posting something new. Try to add something which is well sourced, or do spelling errors seperate to adding info. Reverting is only done in an attempt to maintain the quality of a page, not as some sort of insult against you. Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that I did do the changes separately in different edits (check the history if you don't believe me) and the response from SlimVirgin/Clum.. was to revert ALL of them (and then clum added in some of my changes as his/her own anyhow) which is not how it should be done. NathanLee 20:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the revert tool doesn't allow you to choose edits to revert. It allows you to choose a prior version which doesn't contain the new problems and revert to it. You intertwined your typo edits with your adding info edits, and the easiest and quickest way to restore the non-OR text is to revert all of them.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also the laziest, most destructive to new content and most coarse grained approach. :) Seriously if someone's not going to take the effort to see if there's some good contribution or use the diff on an edit before deleting it and the previous 5 edits en-mass then they should leave it to someone who is willing to take the time and effort and save pissing people off by just dumping any and all contributions. If someone adds a whole page of information and they make one typo: that's not a reason to hit the revert button I don't think. A better (more constructive) approach is to fix the typo instead. At any rate: that user has a history of just hitting revert because someone updates content and needs to learn to either use the discussion forum (without editing out other people's comments) or the edit functionality. I personally don't know how they find it easy to find the undo button, :) the wiki UI is pretty good at hiding that functionality away :) NathanLee 20:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well as I have explained - original research should be removed on site, that, combined with the multiple other problems lead me to see that the series of edits you made violated our policies a few times. As wikipedia is suffering from a lack of credibility due to original research and unsourced info the best thing to do is remove it as quickly and efficiently as possible. Fixing a few typo's at a later date is much less important in the scheme of things, IMO. Also, the revert function has various forms - I use a script which allows me to revert by hovering over a prior version, admin's like SV have a specific revert tool and then there is the undo button.

Also, the reason, I am guessing, SV removed your comment is because it borders on a personal attack as it is discussing an editor rather than content. It is also off-topic for that talk page. So, please don't read so much into people's actions - there is nearly always a simple explanation for everything. (To use a term that is thrown around 'the cabal doesn't exist' :D )-Localzuk^(talk) 20:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a word of advice on your comments on the PETA talk page

It seems that, while you have some good and perfectly legitimate points, you are letting your annoyance get the best of yourself. May I suggest you take a tiny break (a few hours, at most until tomorrow) and give yourself a chance to get your calm back before continuing? While there are several editors who would agree with your points, you're much less likely to attract favorable opinions in a tone that (excuse my honesty) sounds more and more shrill every time you answer. True, you might be baited (but I wouldn't presume), but regardless, it is fruitless to let your anger get the upper hand. Feel free to answer on my talk page if you so wish. Regards,--Ramdrake 19:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, yeah.. When the person in question is editing out other people's contributions on the discussion page as well it's hard not to get a little annoyed. I'm done with going anywhere near that page for a while.. It seems as though some people are unwilling to have anything on it change, whether it be spelling corrections or an attempt to balance out the page. The only reason I decided to contribute to the page in the first place was that it read like an advertisement. Thanks for the advice though.. I'm just a bit annoyed at people swinging an axe through all contributions because they have an issue with one part of it. There are better ways of correcting content. NathanLee 20:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi NathanLee, no I am not anyone else, only myself. Please try to adhere to our civility rules, which include WP:AGF, among others. Thanks, Crum375 20:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I just noticed the same thing with SlimVirgin/Crum. They must be affiliated irl or via IM or something. Amusingly, Localzuk has also popped in to take SlimVirgin's side on something for me before, too.Jav43 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I just point out that it is not an unusual thing for multiple editors to edit the same articles, especially when they are all part of the same wikiproject and have similar interests... Just throwing that out there.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to search for uses of your name? (I find it amazing that you found my mention of your name that quickly, Localzuk ;)). Jav43 23:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin /Crum375 tag reverting

NathanLee, I notice that you informed SlimVirgin and Crum375 that you suspected they were the same person, but you didn't notify them that you had filed an SSP case. This is poor form. In any event, I have closed the case because you didn't provide any specific evidence of sockpuppetry. In the event that you wish to pursue this further, you will need to provide specific and strong evidence that the users are the same person, because right now it looks like you are trying to get the upper hand in a content dispute by accusing other users of misconduct. Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for missing the step, I thought the automated creation of the issue was sufficient. There's no ongoing dispute and I've no desire to "get the upper hand" merely to prevent taggteaming of reverting other's work. Might I suggest that as I have provided more specific evidence I have fufilled your request. (since the evidence I listed appears to not have been detailed enough: whether they are the same person or are merely coordinating reversions to prevent others from contributing information they disagree with.. which is fair enough, so I supplied the information in the discussion page) My purpose for looking into it was that it is I believe both poor form and discourages others from contributing to be constantly and team tag reverting. You (appeared) to have dismissed the evidence as presented without much investigation, and "being well known" is not a reason not to investigate something (if that were true: no one "known" would ever be investigated). The fact that the user in question themselves deleted the attempt to get it investigated should be viewed as somewhat suspicious in itself (I would think). NathanLee 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

NathanLee, you still haven't provided any evidence to justify investigation. Bear in mind that you're talking about two established users, who are administrators. This means you need to supply extremely strong evidence to even get someone to pay attention to the case. Right now, you haven't even provided specific diffs of a 3RR violation--you just linked to the page history of three different articles. If all you've got is "tag-team reverting", I'd recommend that you stop wasting your time on this. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Undid blanking

Put back all the discussion content from previous talks.. Think it was mistake to clean up too quickly. NathanLee 13:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might want to know

that SlimVirgin also deleted the note User:Akhellius left on her talk page [1] about the closure of the case you opened against her, and then archived her talk page [2]. I left Akhellius a note about it on his talk page. Tiamut 20:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not that fussed anymore, it seems that this user is beyond question regardless of the sneaky delete-her-own-article.. I do think that they have used reverts and tag team reverting as a tool to annoy others enough to then be able to continue their own shaping of articles. The difference was that I didn't just give up and looked a bit closer was all. As for removing content on her own page: she doesn't ever seem to leave anything negative or questioning hanging around at all.. But I don't think that's suspicious in itself other than the user being a little too concerned about any criticism.NathanLee 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: moved this from my user page to this discussion area.. NathanLee 13:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Please provide evidence that the two terms are used to mean different things, because we can't engage in original research i.e. we can't be the only publication that uses the terms differently. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the onus should be on you as you are merging them under the banner of "factory farm". I don't see that a POV and restricted laden term like factory farm should be the name referring to these distinct concepts.. But will answer back on the discussion page of the article. NathanLee 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss on article talk, not user talk. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please pay attention to the article talk then. You have thus far ignored it. NathanLee 17:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have responded but you are ignoring me there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please note that 3RR refers to any undoing of another editor's work, in whole or in part, even one word in some instances. Please review the policy carefully. If you violate it, you will be reported, because you've already been warned. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim: I'm attempting to contribute, please assume good faith and contribute constructively. I'm not undoing I'm adding a more accurate description. If you are taking the approach that any contribution I make on that page is "undoing" your work, then you yourself are guilty of undoing others work.. Please assume good faith, my edits are NOT 3RR, they are contributing material. You have now reverted 3 times on that page.. I have not reverted and you have not read the discussion page. Waving threats of 3RR to try and keep your material in an article when there's been a lot of discussion on the talk page is no assuming good faith OR part of the policy NathanLee 19:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, I also agree with you on all your points about Slimvirgin. I would like to help to make a objective and thorough article but have been accused (as many others have been) by SV that my intetions and leanings are otherwise. I do not know enough about Wikipedia to but would like to bring in a third party editor to review SVs actions, accusations, threats and edits, etc... Do you know how this process is started? I would also suggest freezing the article until the hositlity has subsided. --Agrofe 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Agrofe, it's hard sometimes staying polite and avoiding the attempts to spark an argument (at least that's what it appears like when offers to discuss are ignored and changes or reverts blasted through).. I don't want to get into bagging a user's conduct where they're not likely to see or have "right of reply" but I do think wikipedia in general has a bit of a problem if an editor (any editor) continues to be abrasive and treat things like an excuse to swing weight around. I think structured, logical arguments are the way wikipedia has to work, and whether someone's a recognised editor or not if they have a good reason for doing something and it's verifiable then it should go in.

To give you background: I attempted to ask for a review of some tag team revisions (perhaps the term was incorrect: sock puppet might not be the word.. Meatpuppet or collusion might be a better one. Basically tag teaming or ganging up to force a point across) and I would suggest that the proper channels do not really exist for proper critical review of those regarded as senior or "well known". I attempted to request investigation of sock puppetry which was deleted by the user themselves. Now if that doesn't raise flags: I'm not sure what will raise flags. The investigation consisted of "this person is known.. waste of time" type comment see here. That to me is not an argument and without a democratic process requiring refresh (e.g. terms of office) there's an inherent flaw that you get the "old boys/girls club" where a position is pretty much for life and above question.. Which should be fixed if wikipedia is to get any long term credibility I think. There is a "request for comment" process but I'd really suggest that you're going to get no-where quickly there as that a senior user can counter-claim you're being "disruptive" and then have you booted off wikipedia in the ensuing shitstorm.. Absolute worse thing I'd say you can do is to go looking for fights on other articles..

As for the user in question: I think they have done some good work definitely. Even the article I'm currently trying to fix is better structured and cleaned up: it's just the content is skewed and unsupported in parts (which to me is a major problem).. So it's just a case of correcting the bias in the article and hopefully getting the user to chill out a bit and work with rather than against and (it seems) for an agenda. One sided rigorous critique, just need it on both sides. :) Which I guess is what I'm taking the role of on that article, it's just I don't have editorial rank to throw around and be shielded by so my arguments have to be backed up by more than the assumption that I'm senior and well known..

I do think that in this case the user appears to be slowly introducing POV into various articles by chipping away at any parts or changing images etc regarded as "anti" and then winning the war via bullying/accusing, influence and abrasive behaviour rather than reasoned discussion. So I do think there needs to be some process for flagging this, but the political process of wikipedia is as it stands: broken in this regard I'm afraid to say. I'd almost have to say that beyond basic user level "ranking": people maybe shouldn't be able to edit articles any more. At least not to introduce new material, because with contentious topics the risk is they'll use their power or influence to censor the dissenter via blocks.. NathanLee 02:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nathan, thanks for the information. You address the crux of the issue in your first paragraph. My only other experience was watching the locking and third party review of Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII and it seemed to be somewhat effective and building a common ground. Unfortunately SV (and others contributing) refuses to collaborate or attempt to find a common ground (she only is willing to approve other's work). My issue with these editors (SV in particular)is (an I think you put succinctly; "...slowly introducing POV...") is the "untouchable" complex they seem to affect (at some point wikipedia will need to address this issue). There also appears to be a classifying or ranking by these editors of other newer editors or editors who have less time to spend than them on wikipedia. SV's hubris in particular is disturbing.

The "Above Questioning" attitude used by SV to run around in the very limited sphere in which she participates in wikipedia to threaten, block and delete with impunity. She also the perspective that her word is final and indisputable (as she is truly the most informed and experienced) and like a librarian "shooshing" you for being to loud in the research section soflty corrects you (for your own benefit and the befit of others). Recently she responded to my looking for a third party review that I somehow "approved" of the article at one point (the "mind reader" complex).

Aside from the images; the good vs evil; the animal right slant; lack of technical information; etc... a major point of weekness with the Industrial Agriculture article is the almost complete disregard of cropping agriculture by many editors. This shows a fundamental deficiency fo knowledge of the "positive wikipedia contributor"s to which this article directly relates. This is clearly a lack of understanding of what agriculture is in general and instead of looking to see that some other perspecitve might be valid, they dig their heals in in confident (but unsubstatiated) defense of their POV.

Completely overlooked in the IA article, and of paramount relevance, is the fact that cropping agriculture uses far more petrochemical inputs than does livestock ag. The oversight by the "alpha editors" shows again the hubris of higher knowledge and the bias of the animal rights perspective being pushed by them. At some point one of the editors posited that carrot farming would never be seen by anyone as IA. This is completely untrue inaccurate as huge acreages of carrots are grown in monoculture using 100% petrochemically derived pest control and fertilization, including intensive fumigation practices. The land preparation, planting, harvesting, packing and distribution being competely mechanized.

Well, I digress. Good information and perspective you give and I hope to contribute something to the article again (when I am allowed to by the experts).--Agrofe 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points, Agrofe. I think the problem is that the term "factory farming" isn't used to refer to crop-based agriculture - and these "expert editors" cannot see past the propaganda-based view of "factory farming" in which they have been indoctrinated. We really need to build separate articles so that we can treat these separate issues separately. Jav43 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Now now guys, this is all easily fixable: just sign up to some radical anti-everything activist newsletters and sit yourself down in the required position to absorb the propaganda goodness like this. Then you'll find accepting un-referenced bullshit wikipedia edits becomes easy! ;) NathanLee 02:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hahahaha, beautiful :). Jav43 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Webmethods glue

I dropped the speedy tag. In the future, when you put a hangon tag up, leave the speedy tag if you created the article yourself. DarkAudit 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry.. Didn't realise I'd chopped it out as the message was still up. My apologies. NathanLee 16:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice work

		The Original Barnstar
		For nimbly and delicately dealing with contentious issues and passionate editors in the factory farming article. Jav43 19:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hehe, thanks.. I'll be sure to put it with all my other nice things ;) Where do these little award things come from anyhow? :P NathanLee 02:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the discussion of them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars . Jav43 17:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

The lead has to present a summary of the entire article and the 2 paragraphs being presented by yourself (and others) as the lead do not do this. They barely cover the content of the article. The version SV has reverted to covers a lot more of the article and as such is a much better lead. There is no original research as far as I can see - all aspects of it are sourced to reliable sources. Your removal of sourced information due to your own beliefs is lowering the quality of the article, as I have said before. Please don't comment on my talk page about this, use the article talk page.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan's version *does* cover the whole article :P. It could be more extensive, but I think concise lead sections are good. Jav43 17:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

silly buggers

So amusing... and true! Jav43 01:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah, I presume you're talking about the PETA article? Fun, fun. Well, at least I know nothing about PETA, so I have no reason to get involved there ;). Jav43 08:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming

Just a word of advice: there are some experienced editors who will attempt to bait you into using language that will be labelled as "incivil". Even though you are 100% right, you may want to consider toning down the rhetoric a bit. Especially avoid the seven dirty words. There is broad support for your version of the article and there is no reason to blow it by being undiplomatic. Haber 14:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I'll attempt to tone it down. I'd think though that the term "bullshit argument" is a pretty common one around the world (references available.. ;) definitely used in Australia a lot) so I didn't figure it would be very offensive.. There's even a show called "bullshit" so if that's offensive, it'd be pretty much on the lower end to be allowed to call the show that. Like when people say "bitch".. NathanLee 15:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution lead me to species then to species problem then to Lumpers and splitters which made me think of the issues at Factory farming. Take a look at Lumpers and splitters and see what you think. WAS 4.250 19:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey -- thanks for keeping things somewhat sane on the factory farming talk page. I don't have the time to fend off Localzuk/SV/Crum's hidden agenda right now. Great job calling them on their POV. Jav43 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 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.

This message delivered: 08:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Slrubenstein

Hey, see my comment on user:Slrubenstein's talk page: user_talk:Slrubenstein#factory_farming_talk. Jav43 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

slimVirgin and Talk:Factory Farming

I saw your post which said in part: "Please stop changing other people's contributions to this page and the selective reformatting to remove other's contributions or comments."

I don't think she has removed anything. Why don't you assume good faith and assume she has refactored for clarity? --John 00:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Try a little good faith on my part. Assuming someone's removal of contributed material from the discussion page is "good faith" quite hard to justify. Have you looked at the history on the talk page, I contributed a bunch of material.. She's removed that from the opposing argument and added it to hers because SHE thinks that is her right to move my contributions around. There's also my comments which she "reorganised" far away from the material in question.. NathanLee 00:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nathan please don't let SV or any other admins get to you. Your contributions are valued and I for one have been listening. Eventually SlimVirgin's outrageous behavior will catch up with her. Hopefully this will happen before too many people become disgusted with the process and give up. Haber 04:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think owning the talk page as well as the article crosses the line where it becomes impossible to contribute. I did a bunch of research which SV has declared is now her research by saying that they support the notion of synonymous. I think the sheer amount of bad faith, revert warring, dismissive and underhanded edits by this user warrant review. NathanLee 13:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts on Wikipedia

I read with interest your thoughts about Wikipedia because I too think that there is room for improvement. Your point about Use of rel="nofollow" was particularly interesting. I agree that Wikipedia has profited tremendously from this little quirk of the current generation of search engines. Anyway, I think you might find this Wikipedia article interesting. Haber 16:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pet/companion animal

FYI, PETA calls pets "companion animals" so when they self-identify the services they provide, their viewpoints, etc, the term they use is "companion animals". I'm not picky one way or the other what the article says - I just saw your comment in my watchlist and thought I would mention it. --BigDT 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but unless it's a direct quote I don't think we should be using a rather strange term for "pet" in the article. Formal, understandable, normal language trumps PETA's view on activist terms for dogs and cats I think.. Only reason I posted up the discussion was due to the agressive editing that goes on for anything that makes the article more neutral.. But thanks for pointing it out and I realise PETA uses the term, they also refer to people who eat meat as "murderers" or similar, and I don't think those terms are really the ones we should use in an article about PETA. NathanLee 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

factory farming

it's getting weird again. you might want to take a look: factory farming (check the history) Jav43 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear oh dear.. It's back to personal attacks. Creative with the sneaky checkuser hints. Oh great. NathanLee 17:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/factory_farming, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Jav43 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

--I don't see any other course of action at this point. Jav43 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 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.

This message delivered: 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC).

Your notes

Nathan, I've asked you several times before not to post on my talk page, and I'd very much appreciate it if you'd stick to that. Any comments related to the article, even distantly related, belong on the article talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah what article does "your user talk page history has been deleted" belong under? Did you read my post: it was nothing to do with any article. It's to do with your talk page history. NathanLee 10:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, how I deal with my talk page is, with respect, none of your business. You said you wanted to link to posts you'd left there about factory farming, but as you may recall I repeatedly asked you not leave me notes there and I reverted them, because you were posting so much there and in several other places. Therefore, those posts are of no use anyway. Please continue discussing the article elsewhere and leave me out of it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a history for a reason. It's entirely valid to want links that have been posted as part of disputes to still be valid so long as they are within policy. But when Crum375 deleted the entire history instead of just one or two entries that might have warranted deletion - that's just preventing any review of what has been linked to in the past that belongs on your talk page (as comes up numerous times in RFAs etc). Your request not to use your talk page is not within policies: Dispute resolution recommends approaching people on their talk page as far as I remember. If you have a question for a particular user or something to be sorted out with a particular user: That's entirely what talk pages are for. Having an audit trail is one of the important things about wikipedia which is why I requested you restore your history that seemed to have been inadvertently removed by Crum375. NathanLee 13:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Nathan, there's no need to harass a user by continuing to post on her page after she has asked you not to just because you're worried that *I* may not have seen a post she removed earlier. Rest assured, I did see it. To avoid a situation in which you feel forced to continue to post unwanted messages, I promise I'll make sure that MONGO has seen it as well. It's not possible for administrators to remove one or two entries, as you suggest above. What they have to do, unless they have oversight (and I'm not sure how that works), is delete the whole page, and then check the box for every version that they want to restore. When a page has a large history, and when, say, edits numbers 172, 352, 481, 628, 936, 1004, 1239, 1498, 1837, 2003, 2384, 2678, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. have stalking content, it would be quite irresponsible for an administrator to restore the whole page except for the little bit of stalking that he happened to see five minutes before. I've already explained that it's a big job working out which versions to restore, and that it's technically complicated because the computer freezes with the large history. I'm quite sure the page will be restored when Slim has time to separate the stalking from the legitimate edits. In fact, it has all been explained to you already. Have you got some problem believing that there was inappropriate previously-deleted content long before Crum saw whatever led him to delete the page? Or have you got some problem with the idea that he was prudent and responsible to restore only what he could see immediately to be unobjectionable, and to leave the rest for later? Please stop posting on her page. If you want to discuss it further, do so here. Since she has been posting on your page, she's sure to be watchlisting it, but in any case, I don't think she has anything further to say on the issue. ElinorD (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fari enough: Though it wasn't "harassment" any more than SV replying here (which is perfectly reasonable). It it was spamming with mindless vandalism then fair enough: but the reasoning was that the previous deletions were done this way and the last (by crum375) was not.. This was before the spate of recent twits posting stuff. That's why I pointed it out (on crum375's page.. which was ignored) and then on slimvirgin's to which the reason of "post on article pages" was a completely off track reply (if it belongs on an article: which one and why post on my talk page to tell me that if the article was more appropriate). If it helps I can suggest a firefox developer plugin (probably one for IE too) that will check every checkbox on the screen if needed if that cuts down some of the tedium if 99% of the posts are not needed.. On the post removed: I don't see why it was necessary to delete a post that clarified my position and was intended for other editors who had commented (and stated I was in support of the operation of culling out certain things..). Got the message about admin tools now: sounds like the admin tools need a bit more fine grained control.. Ideally there'd be a process for flagging, verifying via process and hiding from the history to remove this "delete all" "restore all minus 1" type process.. NathanLee 16:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the word "pestering" better than harassment. An editor was recently blocked for continuing to post on the talk page of an editor who had made it clear that his posts were unwelcome, and he was very offended by having "harassment" in the block log, as the word has connotations of creepy kind of stalking, though it doesn't have to mean that. I personally would not continue to post on a page of someone who had asked me not to do so, unless it was an obvious troll whom I needed to warn or block.

There is a way to check all boxes; the problem is first deciding which ones to check (as Slim's deleted history is full of spiteful, disgusting attempts at stalking, usually from accounts created for harassment purposes), and secondly in being able to load the page without the computer freezing. It's not possible to see diffs in deleted histories; if you want to see the difference between version X and version Y, you have to look through the two versions. That's easy if version Y is just a paragraph added to the end of a page, but if it's a comment stuck into the middle of a long page, it can be difficult to find. So the job you want done, which will be done eventually, really is a very big job.

It would be wonderful if the developers could find a way to allow admins to delete a version without deleting anything else, rather than deleting a page and restoring only the good versions. As far as I know, that's what oversighters do. However, as things currently are, if you want to remove a post with personal information, you have to delete the whole page, and restore everything except that. If someone posts another privacy violation a week later, and a different admin sees it an deletes, he'll probably restore everything except the version that he intended to delete, which means he'll inadvertently restore the stalking from the previous week.

Regarding the removal of posts, I wouldn't have done it, but it's perfectly permissible, and it's generally considered worse to restore an unwanted post on another user's page than to remove one from one's own page. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please observe talk page guidelines

Hi Nathan. I understand you are frustrated but I had to remove this. Please in future confine your use of article talk pages to discuss improvements to the relevant article. Problems with other editors are best resolved using WP:DR. --John 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't *have* to remove anything. You removed it for a rather flakey reason if that's your reason to be honest. That post was related to that article, is relevant and is my input on the situation. Now I'm going to undo your removal of my talk page contribution on an article for those reasons. If you would like me to provide diffs of what I refer to in it, then I can do that. Just ask. I can't give you all of them because history isn't available for everything for certain things. But removing my talk page contribution is not "I had to" as far as I can see. The situation as it is and the behaviour is directly related to the article content because the situation has become untenable. NathanLee 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Posts like that one contribute to the untenability of the situation. I am asking you nicely to use the article talk page solely to discuss improvements to the article. What do you say? --John 21:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the page is (once again) locked on the version that group have been pushing for against so many and varied editors that don't just appear to tag team revert/appear to support each other out of no where etc etc. So in effect a reward has been delivered to people violating the first part of dispute avoidance (revert ONLY as a last resort).

There are so many keen editors that have had all their good will repeatedly sapped on this page by people with an agenda who can't separate that from an article. Just how many page blocks, arbcom decisions, talk page entries going "what the hell?" before someone is able to call out bad editing behaviour and biased POV pushing? I'd refer you to my attempts to engage some of these editors: but the history (as well as the talk page contents) are constantly purged they get so much negative feedback on editing style.

Now I and others went to great lengths to back up my argument on the discussion page, references/logic/encyclopaedias and dictionaries and all falls on deaf ears (or self admittedly wasn't even read but still dismissed) because we have a bunch of animal liberation proponents hell bent on editing to their narrow view that agriculture can be summarised into a picture of a dirty sickly looking pig in a cramped stall (that HAS to be the lead on any page possible).

Once you've tried assuming good faith and requesting the users participate in discussion and been ignored you see that there IS page ownership, there IS edit warring, there is tag teaming/meat puppetry/coordination of the wikipedia equivalent of a surge going on on that page and it amounts to subtle vandalism. But I'm not allowed to say it? :) That's not how it should be and if that's not something I'm "allowed" to say then I'm going to have to invoke the "ignore the rules" policy because it needs to be said. These people are bad editors on this topic because they want it to be a forum for promoting animal lib views (their synthesised definitions of which incidentally aren't even in line with the definitions of most of the animal lib sites). In general some involved seem to be bad editors full stop given the number of the community are driven away, piss off or end up in arbcom proceedings over.

Anyhow, it's frustrating to see that it appears unless you watch the article like a hawk the same tactics appear to be used again and again. Like a goldfish with a 3 second memory (more like 3 week memory) the same argument process seems to have to be worked through again, with whatever brave soul comes along next before giving up in frustration. I think Jav made a good call: the page will sit there now as the victory (getting the page locked on their version) has been won. The history comments suggest this is nothing more than holding the page hostage to force it to mediation at all costs (which it has been suggested is yet another tactic). NathanLee 22:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As the admin who protected the page to stop an edit war in progress, I find your message insulting to my integrity. I would unprotect it like a shot if I thought there was a spirit of compromise abroad. I ask you to assume good faith on my part, please. As for the behaviour of other editors, I think you should start by setting a good example to them of the sort of collegial editing you wish to see in them. --John 22:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean for anything in my statement to be making any accusation against you whatsoever (I don't think you've done anything out of line, and I don't think the above statement does make any accusation against you as the page locker). As for the cause of why any page relating even roughly to animal/animal lib topics seems to end up in this same situation. Try the pages on animal activist groups, on things relating to animals (e.g. farming, performance animals etc). I'd lay money you'll find a pattern and perhaps a possible solution to avoiding these pages ending up in revert wars (that is the editors common to disputes across the board get asked to not edit those type of pages, since a pattern quickly emerges). Yes, you locking the page was appropriate: the repeated strategy/habit of some users revert warring or editing in a style which encourages disputes (e.g. page ownership, biased editing etc) is not. NathanLee 10:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming

I just wanted to let you know I appreciate your efforts with the Factory Farming article, but I don't think that Wikipedia is operated in the way you seem to think it is. I'd encourage you to read up about Wikipedia in places other than Wikipedia. Good luck and if you ever need help drop me a line. I may still be reading my talk page and contributing now and then. Pretty soon there might not be too many people around who remember the entire sorry history of this article. Haber 02:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrm.. Well, perhaps this is another one of those things that will implode on themselves if people keep acting they way they do. Currently I think george orwell would be proud there's definitely a lot of "All pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others". There's also the memory hole and she/he who re-writes history controls the future kind of thing.. Although with some of the stuff I seriously have to wonder if the selective amnesia, delusion and pathological lying is feigned or real? I guess for the people who have more hours in the day than anything else to edit war on wikipedia in their dark little dungeons it probably all seems real enough as they hide behind their anonymous, protected unaccountable accounts and try to drive away anyone who doesn't share their hobby of manipulation of wikipedia for fun and/or profits. :)

Regardless of how it is being run, it should be run well if it's got any hope of ever being taken seriously. I think slowly the truth always overcomes, it's just at this stage it's still pretty easy for someone who has been around for a while to warp the truth. Hope you're not giving up on it too though? NathanLee 11:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether the truth overcomes within Wikipedia or outside of it is the big question. For now I'm on a bit of a break, but I could come back. I have no interest in contributing at the moment, but I saw what you're still going through and thought it was interesting that so many of us have hit the wall with the FF article. Haber 21:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting is one word for it.. Appalling is another. Anyhow, I think there are plenty of people who know what the game is, so it's just a matter of time really before the powers that be can no longer sweep things under the "respected editor" bullshit excuse because it's so obviously not the case. NathanLee 22:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Response

I thought the deleting admin was wrong, and I was right, and we rv'ed 3x each. I went to AN/I, saying I was leaving it in their hands. I do not agree with them, but I let their judgment stand. They thought your comments were trollish. JzG's comment at the end I took as an indication that he A'ed GF in regards to me. (there were some fairly hostile comments directed to me, not counting the two admins who were acting as SV's advocates.) And in the end, SV removed your comments herself.

Why explain? Because I think the comment you just left is likely to get you either a warning or a block. She knows what you think. Why not self-revert? And fast. I thought about doing it for you, but I think it needs to be you.

And, last thought, while I don't think the deleting admin was right, I can't see a good reason to leave gratuitous negative comments on a hostile admin's talk page. You might think about that. Jd2718 01:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

JzG is no longer with wikipedia I believe (and if his ability to distill down what the issue was about was that you thought I was trolling then I'd say his skills at interpretation are somewhat impaired).

If wikipedia is all about lawyering and stifling anyone being able to make valid points (and worthy of a block) then so be it. It'd be hard for someone to block me for something which is plainly not worth of a block (unless they're not assuming good faith or good intent). I have more faith in the system than to assume that's the case.

"She knows what you think": not sure what you mean by that.. I know what I think, the only way someone else will know is if I tell them. I don't see any reason why I'd self revert something I want to say to ElinorD about the deletion of a comment which violated no policy and which was intended to improve the behaviour of another editor. Anyhow, thanks for your concern, but I've nothing to hide/obscure/censor and I'll exercise my right to voice my concerns and really just between ElinorD and myself anyhow.

As an aside: it's rather worrying the allergy or active campaigning against any sort of review or "pointing out dodgy behaviour" on here.. That's not a good thing for a system to be actively against self improvement/"calling it like it is" or constructive feedback. NathanLee 02:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck. Jd2718 02:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Carroll

Yes, I have worked with the MNPFP campaign. I will also assume you will ask "Umnstudent" not to work on the Marilyn Carroll page because of the obvious bias too? If you feel that Umnstudent can edit and I can't, I don't think I will abide by your request because it is hypocritical.Carniv 18:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Carniv : You have an involvement with a group and appear to be editing in wikipedia purely to campaign against a person: That means you should neither edit nor contaminate other related pages with that information.

My comment on your blatantly biased editing is completely independent of any other user's editing on wikipedia. It's not about me asking someone you disagree with not to edit, it's about me telling you that YOU have a clear bias in trying to use wikipedia as a soap box for attacking a person.

My comments about what appear to be completely biased and conflict of interest driven editing still stand. I suggest if you want to be part of a protest group: that's fine, just stay away from editing wikipedia on related topics.

On the Marilyn Carroll page your attempt to push as much content from your campaign site as possible violates WP:Biographies_of_living_persons this policy. The adding of links from other pages "labelled" firstly "see other" then "controversy" neither follows convention nor neutral point of view. You also had an edit [3] that indicates that you have a real problem with neutrality. NathanLee 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

1. No, my involvement with Wikipedia STARTED because of I wanted to start an article on Marilyn Carroll but that is not my only purpose and I am starting to work on other articles not even related to the U of M.

2. What about the CLEAR bias UMNstudent has? I mean, just look at the name!!!!! Why has UMNstudent not discussed WHY MARILYN CARROLL IS SO CONTROVERSIAL???? It is not because "Marilyn Carroll is a professor of neuroscience at the University of Minnesota. She specializes in the study and treatment of drug addiction in primates and rats." It is because of what her methods are and the results of them. No one can deny what she has said in her own words. Now, that doesn't make her research in itself unreliable, bad, etc... That is up to each person’s morals. But anyway, I find that interesting that you say I have bias, which yes I do, just like every other person in the world, including you (by looking at your edits and your talk page), but that is why there is more than just me on Wikipedia, but you don't feel the UMNstudent has bias.

Yes, I do believe now looking back that a lot of my edits and what I had posted and not posted IS biased according to Wikipedia standards WHICH I KNOW. YOU NEED TO REMEMBER, that was my FIRST edit EVER!!!

I don't see why adding a "controversial" section or whatever is bad... Can you please explain how she isn't controversial if "Later forms of activism included sending pictures of animal mutilations to Dr. Carroll's neighbors and picketing at her home." I mean, there must be SOME controversy if she has people picketing her home... Carniv 22:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I'm making no judgements about the person involved in either your article or the UMNStudent (why that name would be controversial or biased in one direction or another I'm not sure.. Students can both like or hate their teachers/school staff). If you think me pointing out you're biased and me agreeing that UMNStudents undoing of your blatantly biased edits was a good thing (which it is and I think you agree that too if you now looking back see that it was biased). Good job on learning, I too took some time to learn the ropes (e.g. finding references etc), so I'm not trying to crucify you before you get a chance to figure it out.. That's why I posted a message in the first place.

You also have to step back and examine whether your narrow view of the topic makes something more controversial than it might be in the grand picture. Let's take your example if you like but this time from a family who is dealing with rehabilitating a drug addicted child (just to pick a deliberately emotive topic). Now to those people research like what you are protesting against might mean the difference between getting their child back or being stuck with a junkie. From their point of view: your stance is highly controversial. Drug addiction itself is hardly a light topic: but I'd imagine any science to do with physiological/biological reactions to addiction is going to have to firstly involve getting something addicted (nasty though that sounds). Now although you have issues with it: from what I know of research involving any sort of animal testing it has to pass ethics committee approval, so from that point of view it is also not controversial as it falls within accepted boundaries. Not all research is free of distasteful elements.. I know a biologist who while doing her masters had to kill a bunch of cute little marsupials. Not something I'd like to be having to do, but there were standard ethical reviews of the research.

I'd say that for any given topic, expressing an opinion, regardless of how well backed up: someone can probably find a counter argument which you can then say "oh there's controversy". Is the world flat? Some people still think it is. People with absolute views on things often have issues with grey areas (which is understandable). Your group (I imagine) believes that any and all primate study is wrong. To anyone with an incurable disease currently: they might beg to differ. So you might equally put links in the uni staff list to your hated doctor under "potential life saving/rehabilitating researcher" as "controversial cruel to animals person". Or you could just say they were a researcher at the university in the staff list. I'd be going the last option myself.

Back to the notion of whether this person is controversial: if it is YOUR group that's picketing or sending pictures of animal mutilations to Dr. Carroll's neighbours firstly: I'm not a fan of that (that's entirely my personal advice of the type of people who do that kind of stuff because it's cowardly, stalking, dumb bullying and blackmail in my book and is usually just a substitute for rational argument or reason.. end rant), and secondly (actually relevant to this topic) you should not be editing related articles to push your bias. That's conflict of interest plain and simple. Same reasoning applies to businesses editing their own article or the white house editing articles on george bush. End result is a skewing of the page.

You have to recognise your inability to see past that bias or admit you can't when you're editing wikipedia. If you're basing some judgement on my editing being "biased" then I'd beg to differ as I was arguing against exactly the same narrow minded view that say SlimVirgin/Crum375 etc hold in relation to anything and everything agriculture related (compared to my and other users definition that agrees with say Britannica, various dictionaries etc). I should mention that I (unlike those users) do not censor my talk page/delete history every 5 minutes to wipe away the hundreds if not thousands of people criticising them, so you have the luxury of history/context with my pages and will continue to have that for the foreseeable future.

Anyhow, all this is a diversion from the key concept that you've figured out that biased editing is a bad idea. Maybe take a deep breath and look at the clash you had with the other user and see whether that user was just a recognising the bias you figured out soon enough. Failing that: look at the articles on wikipedia being edited by political parties or lobby groups recently and you'll see what your type of action does to the credibility of the project. NathanLee 01:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey,

My intent was really to create a balanced Wiki article on her. I know there is no way you can tell since the only way you can judge me is what I'm writing but I really wanted to have a good article on her. I was by no means done with that article. I had just put in what I knew about her and I was hoping that other people would come along and put in more general information. I believe in the sense that pretty much all I wrote about her was negative, that yes, it was biased, but I think instead of deleating all of that (and none of it wasn't true, most of that information, quotes, etc were her words), the people who edited it should have added, not taken away.

Basicly, I feel if what I wrote, was combined with more general, and specific information from other people, it could have been a very good article. Now, all we see is that she addicts monkeys to drugs and there are some people harrasing her. We don't know WHY they are harrasing her. There are MANY other researchers at the U of M who do addiction research with animals but the reason Marilyn Carroll is chosen is because we feel that her research is THE MOST harmful. We don't get that idea in the article. We —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.55.217.117 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I haven't gotten into the "why" of the controversy is because there is no independent research on the topic (at least none you had cited). Just because you read her research articles and drew your own conclusions as to its controversial nature doesn't mean it can be part of the article. Wikipedia does not allow for you to do such independent research for articles. Also, the controversial part of the research nearly falls under the scope of deletion by WP:Notability as there are very few organizations that have protested against Marilyn Carroll, it has never been very well publicized, and it isn't that notable in the history of the University of Minnesota. In addition, the track record for your posts relating to Marilyn Carroll is poor as most of the edits have either had major revisions or been deleted entirely for the same reasons. (NathanLee -- sorry for clogging up your wall with this, I just figured this was the best place for now as the conversation seemed to have moved here. If you want, moving this whole section to the Marilyn Carroll talk page may work better) Umn student 04:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at the page again if you are still interested, he seems to have recruited a pro-animal rights admin to help him with the page. Umn student 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Motorcycling Wikiproject

Welcome to the Motorcycling WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones as we need that. Cheers ww2censor 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, I've been pottering along at a handful of motorcycle related articles so far and think there's work enough to justify joining the motorcycle group to coordinate efforts with everyone else doing the same thing. NathanLee 17:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A Motorcycle Wiki

Hey Nathan Lee, Here's an opportunity to put your expertise on motorcycles. Cycle Chaos is a Wiki-styled web site that needs a lot of help from people who love bikes and can contribute more information and even more manufacturers. There's virtually no problems with administrators and it seems free to edit without any editorial trouble. You seem to be someone who can really offer some content, images, categories, that may be lacking. My user page is: Cycle Chaos, Noles1984 so stop by and say hello and see if you can be of help. Thanks. Noles1984 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. If you'd like to participate in drafting it, please feel free. Cla68 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark and mythology

The article is listed under 'Folklore', Christian mythology', 'Jewish mythology', and 'Islamic mythology'. I have no problem with that, or the 'Mythology' box. But the edit 'the mythology of Abrahamic religions' was meaningless. They're religions, so 'religious writings' is a more appropriate term. This makes no suggestion that these writings are factual. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually I added in the categories as they seemed to be absent. Stating that something is what it is in the lead shouldn't be a big issue. The noah's ark flood IS a bit of religious mythology. Why the huge objection to pointing that out in the lead as common sense would dictate? NathanLee (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Higher Criticism

"Higher Criticism" was a technical term used in the 19th century to distinguish the new form of criticism, using new methods, from the existing biblical criticism, "lower criticism". Both terms are now obsolete among active scholars, although many conservative/evangelical writers continue to talk about "higher criticism" when they actually mean the documentary hypothesis.

Lower criticism is now called textual criticism - it involves examining manuscripts to determine what "family" they belong to, and to theorise about the development of the text over time (e.g., comparing the Dead Sea Scroll version of Genesis with the Masoretic, although actually it's usually done at a finer level of detail than that example). Higher criticism was based on a new methodology introduced in the late 18th century, of identifying "markers" in a single text which seemed to link to/come from originally separate sources, and then arranging them in parallel columns. Thus in the Ark story God is sometimes called YHWH, sometimes Elohim. So you put the Elohim verses in one column and the YHWH verses in another. And you find, hey presto, that Elohim is linked to verses about 7 pairs of animals and YHWH to verses about one pair, that YHWH has the raven and Elohim the dove, and so on, and that the whole story has been unzipped into two complete parallel narratives. Source criticism, it's now called. When there was only that and lower criticism around, the two terms were enough. But early in the 20th century, new methods started appearing. The first was form criticism, invented by Hermann Gunkel. It was followed by tradition history, and then by more and more methods. A two-term approach, lower and higher criticism, was no longer adequate. The blanket term now is simply Biblical criticism, and textual, source, and the rest are the various tools and approaches taken.

Those three methodologies - source, form, and tradition - are aimed at finding the origins of texts. That's actually a backwater nowdays - not many scholars are actively seeking the origins of the Torah, since the whole enterprise seems to have run into a dead end. Most modern scholarship is aimed instead at investigating the world of the text (a phrase commonly used) and its relevance to our own world.

I have no idea of your level of knowledge and so I'm explaining the basics - if you already know all this and I'm inadvertently being patronising, please forgive me. PiCo (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If my edit isn't being understood then it needs to be changed. But I guess the essence is:

• documentary hypothesis refers to one specific theory on how the Pentateuch came to be composed
• source criticism is a method for determining the sources within a composite text (it's used with any text, not just the bible)
• higher criticism in the 19th century referred to the "other" criticism, the sort that wasn't the "lower" criticism - it's now archaic, though you still come across it in conservative circles, where it's usually a synonym for the doc hyp.

PiCo (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ark and Flood

You say there's too little to be said abt the Ark alone. On the contrary, there's a lot to be said. It's built as a model of the Temple in Jerusalem (each has 3 sections, and the dimensions are similar tho not identical), it links to the similar structure of the vessel of Ziusudra (built in imitation of a ziggurat), and both are miniature cosmoses (is that a word?), the 7 levels of the Ziasuddric ark/ziggurat imitating the 7 heavens of the Babylonian universe, the 3 levels of Noah's ark/temple imitating the 3 levels of the universe described in Genesis 1 (underworld, human world, heavens). Getting into the actual flood itself, it begins in the 2nd month of Noah's 600th year, corresponding to the 2nd day of Creation in Genesis 1 (why doesn't it begin in the 1st month? - I'll leave that to you to work out); the Ark then "rests" at the end of 150 days, or 5 months of 30 days each - add the first month and you have the 7th month (cf. the 7th day of Genesis 1, the day of rest, and also with Noah's name, which means "rest"); the waters then go down for 5 months, and Noah exits the Ark on the next 7th month. (That the Flood story recapitulates the Creation story of Genesis 1 is a commonplace of biblical criticism - see also the waters entering through the "windows" of heaven - the world God creates in Genesis 1 is His palace/temple, and it has windows). What else to mention? The doves - why send out doves and ravens, rather than, say, sparrows? Because the raven is the messenger of the gods, and the dove is a sacrificial bird (rather as certain birds/animals are associated with specific gods in Greek myth - and miniature temple-shrines for Yahweh from archaeological digs frequently have doves on them). What else? Did you know that the animals aboard the Ark were all vegetarian? Have a look at the last verses of Genesis 1, and the words Elohim says to Noah after they all come off the Ark. The vegetarianism serves a dual purpose: on a practical level, it stops the lions eating the lambs; as theology, it carries forward the theme of Genesis 1-11, that God has created a world without violence, and that man (and the animals) are continually violating His intention (consider Cain and Abel, and the reason given for the Flood: "the inclination of their hearts is ever towards evil". So, there's this and more to say about the Ark, and I really don't want to get into the vapour canopy and other nonsense. PiCo (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There's really less than a handful of words on the description of the ark. Absolutely everything else which you refer to is made up stuff. e.g. "let's have a guess at how this might have worked, but with zero evidence or way to verify it.". An example: looking after the animals, I can say that the animals were entertained via all night rave parties and water slides during the day. Oh and the ark symbolises the coming of a cartoon about life in cubicles: dilbert. Prove me wrong. It's based on as much fact as any of that stuff.

We can't really separate out "the ark" and not have it as part of "the story of the ark". The ark only exists within the context of the mythology. You start mentioning doves/sparrows: they aren't the ark. You're now talking about the *story* that happens to have the ark in it. As is your mention of the flood: that's the story. In short: it's impossible to talk purely about the ark and not start into the story. The article discussing the story includes discussion of the ark. But if you try to cut it down to "just the ark" the article has very limited scope and we'd need an article to discuss the story.

Now back to Noah's age: in the light of the impossible ages I read a theory based on textual comparisons of the stories over time: it (is thought) it was due to a translation error due to the way large numbers were written on earlier versions of the story. If that is taken we get more reasonable ages for these figures (e.g. ages of 80 or so). The story is easily traced to earlier ones and fits with the multiple authorship over many centuries notion of genesis. The writers of religious texts often plagiarise from other religions/legends etc because the stories have the "sticky" quality. elaborations, embellishments and translation errors over the years become part of the text. Lots of interesting books out there on this process in the bible and other books.

But anyhow, I think you're proposing an impractical scope for the article. Like saying you'll have a page on "baby bear" that discusses the personal porridge preferences of the smaller bear but tries not to acknowledge that baby bear is only relevant within the story of goldilocks. :) NathanLee (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning on Noah's Ark

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Noah's Ark. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You're the one trying to edit war with no reason and I was making contributions, all you did was revert without sensible reason. I've seen no attempt by you to refute why "mythology" and the myth box for explaining this rather simple concept to people like you are inappropriate for this article on mythology. NathanLee (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

Nathan, can you please answer why you think that you are not breaking policy by forcing your edits on Noah's Ark? And give a clear description please. I am very interested in this question you refuse to answer honestly.

Here are the all the policies that you are breaking: WP:NPOV, WP:MORALIZE, WP:WORDS, and Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 04:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Because you're trying to say that non applicable policies are in play here. Mythology is not making any judgement (the opposite: it's saying specifically that NO judgement on the validity of this story is being made), nor is it moralising nor is it a violation of NPOV (its omission and wording as factual historic event however IS blatant NPOV and academically incorrect). You can cite all the policies you like but at least pick ones that are actually relevant. Your definition of a policy "directly says" something is just because you have your own NICHE notion that mythology is a "hate term". The disclaimer box is necessary exactly for people like you who can't seem to get a definition, if you look at my most recent edit and discussions on the talk page I put a comment in there instead of that (although no doubt reverted). Your actual argument seems to be that you don't want to cause offence because some small number of people believe something to be literally true, which as I've said is not policy anyhow. Read the article: scientists, biblical scholars alike have abandoned a literal interpretation in the 19th century. Try to drag your wayward beliefs in line with that information so you can be a bit less biased in your treatment of this topic perhaps.

But if push comes to shove: I've pointed out that in this case, to the best of the knowledge of humanity: this story is pure FICTION. e.g. global flood did not happen, species/fossil record around the world does not support it, geometry of the ark is impossible to fit all species, would have broken up etc etc. So whatever your definition of "mythology" that you object to it is perfectly fine, so constitutes "impossible and did not happen". I (and others) really should be arguing for that particular wording, but instead choose to just leaving it hanging as "mythology, so something that which can possibly be true or not but people attach meaning to it".

As I said before: refer to the policy FAQ on pseudo-science (of which creationist theories about noah's ark are almost part of the definition [4],[5],[6] and you'll see the clear directive for not trying to present this pseudo-science as fact. A clear and direct one by the way, rather than requiring your brain to be wired to treat words as having meanings that no dictionary seems to agree with.

You've failed to answer a simple question from me that seems to be at the root of this: is the term "christian mythology" banned in your world? Sure sounds like it. The term is used all over the place to describe the stories of religions. It's you who doesn't seem to realise that. NathanLee (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Nathan, I put one more reply on the Noah's Ark talk page. That' all I have. I just trying to stay neutral in a situation where some people are clearly offended. I see the offense as being easy to avoid without losing anything at all. However, I am just all worn out of disagreements :) T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 22:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I see.. Yep, the discussion has dragged on. Offending religious beliefs is not the goal, but nor is avoiding offending anyone. I could say I'm offended that the article doesn't have "complete and utter fiction" in the lead and we'd be in a bind the other way. It's impossible, I just don't see too many people outside overly sensitive literal creationists perhaps (and surely they'd all be editing conservapedia to avoid such offence) and with the definitions allowing enough wriggle room for "completely true through to completely false" but at the same time identifying that there is wriggle room: I think that should be acceptable to all. NathanLee (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Noah's Ark

Since you've contributed to the recent discussion at Talk:Noah's Ark, this is just a courtesy note to let you know a RFC has been filed here. Thanks, Ben (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Noeh's Ark

I am now mediating Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-11-28_Noah's_Ark as requesting by Til Eulenspiegel - I noticed you added comments to the case notes and would be interested in your point-of-view. Thanks - Wikipedian2 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Notice that I did not put down my support for proposition #1 on the discussion page? (which if you notice still conveniently leaves #2 with the majority). I do not want to take sides in this discussion. Warmly, Buckelz (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I switched user names because I didn't want my name being used anymore. lol I then noticed that I can just change the first username, but I no longer use it, nor will again (I had originally looked into deleting it but found out you couldn't). This is my new one and I have been using it for a week or so. the other one is out of commission. But really, I don't want to pick sides. On Creation according to Genesis we have nicely got the term mythology in there now (besides some random ip reverts now and then). Buckelz (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was just a bit confused.. Must be time for bed I think. Wondered why you ended up with what seemed like three names in there when one would do. :) NathanLee (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

Fair enough, but if the Qur'an is listed (and it probably should be), it shouldn't be as 'Koran'. In any case, I don't think vessel should link to watercraft, as that implies a vessel that moves in an intended direction, rather than an object that simply floats with no intended course or destination.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated

As someone who has contributed to a thread about terminology on WT:NPOV/FAQ, I'd like to point you to a thread that attempts to bring the issue to some sort of closure, here. It's important we try and get to the end of this debate, so your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Ben (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

myth

I agree with your statement on the RfAr page except for this line:

If we want to be correct: it would be perfectly acceptable to label some of these stories as fiction (e.g. Noah's ark vs Epic of Gilgamesh, same story but the biblical one isn't called fiction), but the term "mythology" is a richer term and attaches the concept of significance of stories in religious narratives.

Neither of those is fiction. Both are myths. It would not be acceptable to label either as fiction. Fiction is specifically created by someone to purposefully be a made up story. If people believed it to be true as part of religious beliefs when it was written down, then it's myth, not fiction. I know some JudeoChristians would prefer that myths of other cultures be labeled fiction, but that's not accurate to the academic study of myth or NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fiction is "An imaginative creation or a pretence that does not represent actuality but has been invented.". These stories have been shown to not represent actuality and have been pieced together by various authors over the years. I agree that mythology is the best word though because it adds a level of richness that fiction doesn't convey, but my point was that you really can't argue that these aren't fiction on grounds of historical factuality or something like that.NathanLee (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark FAR

I have nominated Noah's Ark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Vassyana (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Resurrection

It is your editing that is unproductive, since it is apparently driven by emotion. My intent is to make the article robust; you merely want to omit parts you find ridiculous. Like the cynical revisionists, you want to make it seem like the resurrection of Jesus is nothing particularly special; but you have no justification for it. You don't do the hard work. What little you do contribute is controversial and poorly sourced, such as Life-death-rebirth deity. This goes contrary to the principles you claim to espouse on your Talk page.

I have spent much time studying this topic, critically and spiritually. The introduction as I leave it is more than balanced, especially since the topic of Resurrection is dominated by and contiguous with the Resurrection of Jesus. I want to focus on the primary aspects of resurrection, and that means placing proper emphasis where it is due--with the historical records found in the The Bible and history. If you would continue to extract my contributions, then you must provide SPECIFIC justification why.

John Vanderzyden (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

More on Resurrection

I just went to the research library and got three books. One is "Osiris - The Egyptian Reiligion of Resurrection", written by F.A. Wallis Budge in 1961, but there are concerns about how the author defines resurrection. I shall attend to it in detail. The second book is one of which you seem quite fond: "Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan", by John Day. Yet the careful reader is immediately suspect when reading the flawed and grossly omissive arguments in the opening chapter (Yahweh and El).

The third book is "The Riddle of Resurrection - Dying and Rising Gods in the Ancient Near East", by Tryggve N.D. Mettinger [Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 50, Almqvist and Wiksell International, Stockholm, 2001]. It seems quite good, since it takes time to explain what is meant by those ancient 'dying-and-rising' gods. I will soon incorporate the following into the Mesoptamia / Ancient Near East section. It's an outline of the Epilogue:

(1) The world of the ancient Near Eastern religions actually knew of a number of deities (Dumuzi, Baal, Adonis, Melqart, Osiris) hat may be properly described as dying and rising gods...[Yet] only in the case of Melqart-Heracles do we have express terminology of resurrection.

(2) Moreover, this is the case long before the turn of the era, in pre-Christian times.

(3) One should not hypostasize these gods into a specific type "the dying and rising god". These gods are of very different types.

(4) All of the gods that die and rise have close ties to the seasonal cycle plant life.

(5) Yahweh is distinct. The Hebrew Bible offer no evidence that Yahweh was a dying and rising god. In this respect, Yahweh offers a striking contrast to Canaanite Baal.

(6) The resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament is utterly unique, and stands categorically apart from "dying and rising gods":

(a) The ancient Near Eastern gods such as Adonis and Osiris were deities. In Jesus, we confront a human being for whom divinity is claimed by himself and his followers. For the apostles--including Paul--the resurrection was a singular historical event which took place in a particular geographic location. The empty tomb is seen by Christians as a historical datum.

(b) In stark contrast to the one-time resurrection of Jesus, the dying-and-rising gods had close relation to the seasonal cycle--with death and life corresponding to changes in plant life.

(c) The NT writers present the death of Jesus as an intentional act of vicarious suffering of atonement for sins on behalf of those he came to save. Nothing even remotely similar may be said for any dying-and-rising god.

(d) There is no "evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing upon the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions."

John Vanderzyden (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cornetto box.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cornetto box.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Golden gaytime box.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Golden gaytime box.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Paddle pop box.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Paddle pop box.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 12:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)