TruthIIPower

Welcome!

Hello, TruthIIPower, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ... Kenosis (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Uniformitarianism

Please do not remove cited statements without good reason; simply saying that they are "bad" is both impolite to the user who added them (Christian Skeptic, I believe, in this case) and is not useful for qualifying the changes or for improving the article. Please take your concerns to the talk page instead of reverting another time. Thank you. Awickert (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't remove sourced material - sorry about that one. And I like some of your changes. But take it to the talk page and try to be respectful - thanks. Awickert (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not continue to undo edits without taking it to the talk page to explain what you are doing, especially when you have been asked to take the discussion there. If you do so again, I will have to assume that you are not acting in good faith. Awickert (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you disagree with any change I made? TruthIIPower (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but edit-warring is not the way to go about dealing with issues here. Thank you for taking it to the talk page. Awickert (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian Skeptic called me a vandal and threatened to ban me. If anyone is at war, it's him. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Chill, man, it's after you told him/her that their edits were "bad", and you ignored two requests (one from me, one from them) to go to the talk page. You both sound unhappy - work it out. Awickert (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR as you are currently involved in an edit war on this article. Use caution. Vsmith (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

MurmurHash

Hi. I've been checking in on the article from time to time. I just wanted to let you know some more specific information about the templates which were placed on the article. Although there are external web links, which appear as if they might be proper citations, they seem to mostly point to websites. When you have the opportunity, you might want to read: WP:STYLE, WP:CITE and WP:REFS. Good luck with your editing. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick Links

Hello, TruthIIPower! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Abortion

You removed an image from Abortion. I don't consider that a "shock picture" at all, and the consensus on the talk page is that it isn't a shock picture, although inclusion isn't unanimous. The image shows a fetus after a complete spontaneous abortion (aka a miscarriage), so it illustrates the article well at that point as a medical image. I have no pro-life agenda; indeed, I am pro-choice. I can understand your edit, but I disagree with it. Please feel free to discuss this on the talk page. Fences and windows (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

abortion

oh trust me calling a fetus a baby will fly, fetuses are really young babies. --Manning38 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Contemplative Prayer

I have removed the self-published link one more time, and posted the following on the discussion page:

It is true that you are not an expert on WP policies, then. vatican.va is the official website of the Catholic Church, so just like the words of a subject of a biography of a living person can have his/her self-published sites cited, and the Southern Baptist Convention can have it's official site cited, etc. However, when dealing with topics like "Protestantism", one cannot cite the self-published church website of any protestant church. In the same way, just because a church is interested in commenting on "Contemplative Prayer", "Penal Substitutionary Atonement", etc. does not mean that their self-published material complies with WP:V. In fact, it would not.

I will be removing this source again from the main page. I do not want to get into an edit war with you. I will also leave a note on your talk page in this regard. In this particular case, the burden of proof is on you to show that a source complies with WP:V before it can be added to the active page. If you would like to take this for a third opinion, I am open to that, but please also be aware that if you revert this again, you may be guilty of the three revert rule. I am willing to take this for a third opinion or for mediation, but please be aware that a church website will not pass muster required to be a WPV source for the reasons cited above. You are better off finding a source (independently published book, peer-reviewed journal, etc.) than trying to add in self-published sources as viable citations.

If you disagree with this action, please either request comments, a third opinion, or mediation on the discussion page. The burden of proof in adding self-published sources is on the person trying to add them. If you break the 3RR or continue in what may be construed to be an edit war, I will be forced to begin official proceedings, which I do not wish to do. Please review WP:V on valid sources and discuss this on the "talk" page before attempting to unilaterally add this back to the article.

Grace and peace to you.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Contributions

I've noticed that a number of your recent edits (e.g. Young earth creationism, Same-sex marriage in Vermont) are in violation of Wikipedia policies. I'm transcluding a template here with a list of some of the basic policies on Wikipedia - you may wish to review these for more information on how Wikipedia works. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You may also be interested in reading about the five pillars of Wikipedia. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

These generalities are not informative. If you believe that I have broken a specific policy, you're going to need to be specific about it. TruthIIPower (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Other users have already pointed them out on the respective talk pages or in the edit summaries undoing your edits, I was merely attempting to provide information so you could better understand how Wikipedia works in general. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with me is not the same as saying I broke rules. TruthIIPower (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As you wish...I was just trying to be helpful. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage

My apologies, I think I confused your edit with the previous one. We're on the same wavelength. Czolgolz (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning edit

I'm concerned with your edit here with the edit summary "rvv" which stands for "revert vandalism". I don't see how that edit could be considered vandalism by any means. Furthermore, it is disruptive and not AGF to call an established editor with whom you are disagreeing a vandal. Perhaps you could take your concerns to the talk page and discuss the matter? Just be careful who you are calling a vandal, as that word shouldn't be thrown around lightly. Just a little constructive criticism.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for being less established than some, but it is my understanding that intentionally editing in violation of policy is vandalism. This editor, being so much more established and having an extensive history with abortion-related articles, would be well aware of the precedent in such articles to avoid calling a woman a "mother" just because she is pregnant. This would be in violation of the neutrality policy, which is why the history shows that this usage has been repeatedly and consistently purged from Abortion and similar places, with a strong consensus of the editors involved.

If I was wrong in calling it vandalism, I sincererly apologize. But I don't think I was wrong to revert it immediately and without an extended explanation. Perhaps you could help by showing me what sort of constructive criticism I could offer Shrandit. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Intentionally editing in violation of policy is not necessarily vandalism, especially if it is at all possible (it generally is) for interpretations of policy to differ. We define "vandalism" very narrowly here, and we do that on purpose. "Vandalism" refers to edits that are made in order to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia.

People who disagree over how to interpret policy - even if they disagree sharply and extremely - are not vandalizing. They are attempting to make things better, according to their definition of "better". A vandal is someone who replaces an article's entire content with an unrelated image, or who inserts random vulgarities into an article, or who blanks pages. Anyone doing anything that they might reasonably think is "good," according to their own definition, is not a vandal.

We intentionally defined the term narrowly, because it is much better to err on the side of assuming good faith than to err on the side of failing to recognize it.

If someone makes edits that, to your mind, are clearly wrong, then the best thing to do, besides removing - or better, improving - the edit, is to start a section on the talk page explaining why you did what you did. This is better than simply communicating via edit summary because it allows other editors to add their opinions to the discussion without having to make an article edit themselves. More voices are always better, so documenting disputes on the talk page is the first step of dispute resolution - it creates a place for multiple voices to accrue and develop a weight, which eventually defeats any single editor's agenda. That's the first place to go when there's a disagreement.

In a case where an editor makes an edit that is clearly against consensus, the best approach is to revert it with an edit summary indicating that it is "against consensus", and to immediately document the reversion on the talk page. When you do that, it is very difficult for the other editor to credibly revert without joining the discussion - doing so looks very bad. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Is there some way to be automatically notified when I get a reply on a talk page in an article rather than here? TruthIIPower (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding the article to your watchlist, and checking your watchlist regularly, is probably the most popular way. Another approach I use, because my watchlist is rather large (over 10,000), is to click on "my contributions", and then I can see when my most recent edit is no longer the "top" (i.e., most recent) one. This indicates that there's something new to see there. Those (watchlist and my contributions) are the two pages I use to keep up with what's going on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping for something easier. I already use a watchlist, but it's not small and there's a constant stream of noise from random vandalism followed by an immediate "rvv". I've used the contributions page to track down patterns of edits, but never thought to use it on myself, and I'm still not entirely sure how I could tell at a glance whether my edit is the most recent. The closest I've come to that is looking at the "diff" link to check if it's changed color, but that requires me to diff articles right after I edit them. I'm going to have to think about this some more. TruthIIPower (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If your edit is the most recent, then in your "my contributions" page, the word "(top)", bold and in parentheses, should occur right next to it. When the "(top)" indicator disappears, it means something has happened. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Hadn't noticed that, but it's easier than looking at link color. Thanks, I'll try that. TruthIIPower (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

See, I knew about this reply immediately! I often go straight from there to the (hist) link, to make sure it was you and not a vandal... but I should be quiet, and let you discover on your own... :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all for learning at my own pace, but my pace wasn't getting me anywhere, so I'm glad you gave me a boost here. TruthIIPower (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I've asked someone to have a polite chat with you on our civility standards.--Tznkai (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and then we can ask them to talk to Shrandit about POV-pushing, edit-warring and all-but-vandalizing. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with not dealing with POV-pushers civilly is that it "poisons the well". We try to maintain a collegial atmosphere of mutual respect, and that means treating everyone respectfully. The harsher we are with difficult editors, the smaller the chance of making them less difficult. Our goal here is for everyone to be allowed to edit, and that sometimes means convincing people to be less combative and to respect consensus better. If someone fails to respect you, then it is entirely appropriate to seek input from some third party, but if you attack back in any way, then by the time an admin arrives, they won't be able to tell who's the POV-pusher and who isn't.

The real problem is that, in most cases, there isn't a purely right party and a purely wrong party. If you're an admin, and Editor A asks you to stop Editor B from harassing them, while Editor B asks you to stop Editor A from making edits against consensus... what do you do? Usually, both of them have partial justifications. If you're willing to always take the moral high-ground in a dispute, then it becomes much, much easier for someone like me to help you.

In this case, I'd be happy to talk with Shrandit. (It would have to wait a few hours, as I've got a funeral to attend this afternoon.) However, I won't simply present him with a list of charges and tell him to stop. My style is to work with both of you, and to deal with the problem in the context of editing articles together. If you're interested in this kind of help, then I'm confident we can deal with the problems you're talking about. Let me know what you think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm crossing that line into incivility, but I'm certainly not going to reward bad behavior with praise. So far, I've seen very little that might earn my respect. While I have my opinions and political views, I don't come to Wikipedia to do battle in the culture war. I don't think Shrandit can say the same. Therefore, I will offer civility, but not much past that. TruthIIPower (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about lines to cross or not. I don't care about "lines". What a bunch of nonsense. I don't know know what you're talking about, when you say, "I'm not going to reward bad behavior with praise". If anyone has asked you to do that, please let me know, so I can disabuse them of such stupidity. Like I said, if you want my help, it's offered. If you don't... cool. Whatever. My offer stands. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

From your response, I'm pretty sure I wasn't clear about my point, so I'll try again.

There is a range of behavior that is acceptable and then there's a line you cross in unacceptable behavior. Within that range, different levels of friendliness are available, so you have to choose what's appropriate.

If you look at my history, you can see that I've been very nice to some people who've made bad changes because I could tell they were acting in good faith. In others, it's pretty clear that they're not. A case in point would be Shrandit's drive-by templating of Delaware, where they were clearly more eager to have this embarassing fact removed than spend a moment to confirm whether it was true. In those cases, I stay within the bounds of civility, but I lean towards the less friendly side.

This is all I was getting at with trying not "to reward bad behavior with praise". Pretending that someone's intentional damage to an article is a simple, honest disagreement is simple, but not honest, and not effective. TruthIIPower (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, if you ever want any assistance that I can offer, please let me know. I don't know how you can tell that someone else's edits are "intentional damage". I can't do that. I can't see into people that way. Aside from page-blanking or obvious graffiti, I can't tell that someone doesn't really believe what they type. I have to assume that people really do think that their own point of view is "correct" in some way, and that they're motivated by that. If someone is editing against their own notion of "good," I don't know how to recognize that, nor do I understand why anyone would do such a thing.

It's very easy for me to look at someone else's edit and say that it's damaging. Saying that it's "intentionally" damaging... I don't know how to do that. I can probably help you deal with a difficult editor, but I can only do it from my own perspective, and I can't pretend to believe anything I don't believe. I hope that makes a little bit of sense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't think these two options fully exhaust the list of motivations. Sure, some people want to put what they believe is true into Wikipedia (even when it cannot be reliably sourced) and some want to just damage it to leave their mark (or stain), but others are not so much concerned about truth or damage as they are about spin. Consider an editor who lives in a particular state and therefore feels the need to suppress anything possibly negative about it, using any amount of dishonesty to get their "worthy" goal accomplished. It's not that they believe the embarassing facts are false, but that they just don't care. They feel that they are righteous defenders of the public face and are therefore willing to do whatever it takes, truth be damned.

Sound trite and childish? Check out Delaware and see for yourself, and then look at their edit history to see how they've applied the principle of partisanship above truth to all of their edits. Then perhaps you will see what I am dealing with. TruthIIPower (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That example works with what I was saying. If someone is unwilling to see negative facts about Delaware, then they believe that those negative facts should not be in the encyclopedia. Their idea of a "good encyclopedia" is one that emphasizes the good about Delaware. I don't know if you've ever been very close with someone whose beliefs are strongly divergent from your own.

I have a lot of experience here, and none of it points me to any necessity to draw conclusions about their motivations. I've indefinitely blocked many accounts without drawing any conclusions about their motivations. I've also observed that Wikipedians who allow themselves to talk about the motivations of others run into trouble. Your mileage may vary, but I'm trying to share with you the lessons of my experience. I've been an admin for somewhere around 40 months, and I've never seen any good done by identifying others as "partisans". Never. I don't think it happens, and the goal is only to do good, not to speak the truth, unless it will help. I've never seen a "truth" about another editor's bias help. We're infinitely more powerful when we rely on different arguments. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquetted alerts

[1] I've asked outsiders to comment on the current disputes. - Schrandit (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

TruthIIPower, you have been warned multiple times about etiquette. You have left a rude message on my page, accusing me of edit-warring. Please justify yourself, and take it to the moderators. When you continually insist on your own version, and it's reverted by multiple editors, they're NOT edit warring, and you're not working to consensus. DavidOaks (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have left a polite message on your page, asking you to please stop edit-warring. When you ignore consensus and just change the article to fit your biases, that's edit-warring. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fact check

From the CIA. You need to get out more, spot. - Schrandit (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The above comment has been redacted to remove a childish insult. I've asked this person not to call me "spot" or "love" or "madam", but they persist. The next occurance will result in administrative intervention. TruthIIPower (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Big words my friend, big words. In any case, per the comments you left on my talk page - Islam cannot be grouped together as a single religion and none of its individual sects have more adherents than Catholicism. - Schrandit (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, Islam's not a religion at all, it's a club for men and women who like to wear robes. You figured them out. Oh, the things people due to get the tax advantages given to REAL religions, like that of the Catholics and Jedis. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think this could be solved by saying that Catholicism is the world's largest religious denomination, and Islam is the second-largest religion. TruthIIPower, I think you may have missed the point that Schrandit was trying to make about the denominations of Islam. Awickert (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The context was his off-hand claim, in an edit comment, that we shouldn't offend Catholics because they're the biggest religion in the world. I found this offensively self-serving, not to mention factually incorrect. His dismissal of the entirety of Islam on the basis that there's no Muslim Pope shows that he sees the world through Catholic-colored glasses. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I in no way said that and am offended by your attempts to besmirch my good name. Your ignorance of the Muslim faith is just as shameful as your ignorance of Catholicism. - Schrandit (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I dunno about that. Maybe it was a comment in bad taste, and I would say that Christianity (not its largest denomination, Catholicism) is the largest religion, but I think it's a bit of an extrapolation to say that he dismisses Muslims because there is no Muslim pope, especially when he has some recognition of Muslim denominations. Awickert (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Christianity as a whole can't be the issue, since this whole ritual cannibalism thing is mostly confined to Catholics. No matter how you slice it, his comments don't hold much water. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Diplomacy

Hi TruthIIPower. I've been watching your talk page, and it looks like you're having some issues with some other users. From poking around, it seems that you have some valuable contributions to make, but that the interpersonal part is countering your efforts. I would suggest to try working with 100% politeness and 0% sarcasm for a little while - like any online community, Wikipedia can flame, and it's not fun for anyone involved. I think it would help your cause in general as well to appear more professional and less aggressive in your comments.

I'm going to look around at a couple of the ongoing debates and see if I can be useful.

Awickert (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's great advice, and I'll be glad to follow it the moment a few flagrant violators of Wikipedia rules are permanently banned. Until then, I'm just going to have to work at only 99% politeness. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

99% is good. If it helps, from various issues that I've faced on global warming and radiometric dating, being nasty to POV-pushers and other violators generally aggravates issues and results in more wasted time. I'm going to check out the Catholic issue; if you want, I'm willing to be a neutral third party. Awickert (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from participating, particularly if they have some willingness to be objective. However, I don't really see this as a Catholic issue, even if these Catholic POV-pushers do. In specific, I consider the use of round-up terms to be base political propaganda. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

By "Catholic issue" I meant whatever is going on on the Catholic-related article; just found it a few minutes ago. Awickert (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're looking at the minor shenanigans on Catholic League (U.S.), not the major shenanigans on Religion and abortion. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So there are shenannigans there, to, eh? I bet they're major. I'll take a look there as well. Awickert (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow - so I don't have time at the moment to deal with what's going on there. I'm sticking to the minor one. Awickert (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's entirely up to you. Last I checked, we're all volunteers. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep it is, and I'm picking my battles. Awickert (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't hold that against you. Every bit helps. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

You wrote on my talk page: "I've asked you to stop edit-warring. Do I need to ask again or do I need to get an administrator to ask you? TruthIIPower (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)" I answer that you certainly have a lot of nerve. You have been pushing a nonconsensus agenda. You have been edit-warring. By all means, bring in an administrator. I think it's high time. DavidOaks (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand completely: you refuse to stop edit warring. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

One more time: if you think I'm edit-warring, make your case to the admins, or stop making the accusation. I believe your conduct is detrimental to the articles you're working on, and the encyclopedia more generally. Please direct your considerable energy in more cooperative, collaborative ways. DavidOaks (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Words about cooperation and collaboration would be more convincing if they came from soemone who didn't repeatedly edit war. As it stands, I can only dismiss them as self-serving. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Your approach to things is getting a bit heavy-handed, so I've posted concerns about your behavior at the ANI page. Feel free to defend yourself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good. Did you remember to mention your partisan role or did you let them think you were neutral? TruthIIPower (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think I'm partisan, feel free to make that point on the ANI page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your partisanship is a matter of public record. You've self-identified as anti-choice and all of your edits have been consistent with forcing this view onto the articles in question. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Aggressive comments like that are not helping your cause. Awickert (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I reserve the right to defend myself from defamation. If that's considered "aggressive", so be it. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the issue at hand is your heavy-handedness. At the moment, you are proving the point perfectly, and any 3rd party will see you as an aggressor. Awickert (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, only if they're stupid and hasty. If they actually read carefully and think about what they're reading, it should be obvious that any apparent aggression on my part is a response to blatant abuse. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

T2P, responding to questions about your attitude with personal attacks and unsourced accusations of other editors' bias isn't going to help. I'll ask you to comment on edits, not editors, as that's what's being discussed both here and at ANI. Dayewalker (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to point out where there's a personal attack. Failure to do so constitutes an unsourced accusation. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)"Only if they're stupid and hasty" above. Please don't wikilawyer, you know what you're doing. I'm just trying to tell you through experience that attempting to deflect discussion about your behavior won't remove the spotlight. It's best of you comment on your own edits, and not other editors. Dayewalker (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, someone would certainly have to be stupid and hasty to arrive at that conclusion, and yet this fact cannot be a personal attack as nobody has been targeted. It looks to me like you're fishing for insults. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with all that. Dayewalker (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And thank you so much for your help. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of which I have been called before, occasionally with justice. If you wish to dismiss the full reply at ANI by other means, please refrain from further iterations of the poisoning the well and tu quoque fallacies. You might instead speculate whether a subtext of this answer is political opposition to your views, or distaste at seeing opinions I share being argued in such a manner. Adieu.  ;) Durova^Charge! 05:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue of what your political views might be. I do know that I am consistently on the receiving end of bad behavior by a !cabal of anti-choicers who apparently will stop at nothing to get their way. Remember, it's not paranoia when it's patently obvious that they're out to get you, and even the voice in your head that tells you to burn things agrees with you. TruthIIPower (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't it you who wrote just a few posts above Feel free to point out where there's a personal attack. Failure to do so constitutes an unsourced accusation? Please provide diffs of anybody being out to get you. Durova^Charge! 05:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TruthIIPower&diff=286789027&oldid=286788884. TruthIIPower (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep going. Durova^Charge! 05:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I would suggest you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion_and_abortion, with an eye toward violation of neutrality, assorted incivility and plenty of baiting. TruthIIPower (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No thank you. You made the accusation; it's your responsibility to back it up. So far the only thing you have demonstrated is that after two wikiquette alerts had already been opened on you, and after you had subsequently continued posting rudely, someone opened an ANI thread and notified you. That is normal (and even lenient). Surely, if you are consistently on the receiving end of bad behavior then it should be nearly effortless for you to provide diffs of it. Preferably diffs of occurrences prior to the initiation of formal dispute resolution concerning your conduct. Durova^Charge! 06:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, if you won't look then I'll paste it here:

I'm sorry, but do you have an explanation or are you going to keep making this personal? I have no interest in the latter. TruthIIPower (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're the one that made it personal, love. - Schrandit (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to make it impersonal by offering some justification. And please don't be uncivil by calling me "love". TruthIIPower (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What does that even mean, spot? - Schrandit (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And then later, on this page:

From the CIA. You need to get out more, spot. - Schrandit (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like Schrandit has been repeatedly and intentionally uncivil, with the apparent intent of baiting me into calling him what he is so that he (or Bugs) can get you to kick me out for him. Then he'll be free to make a laughing stock of Wikipedia by filling controversial articles with his bias. TruthIIPower (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was the poster I was referring to when I noted that toward the bottom of your user talk page people were beginning to lose patience with you. As you may have also noticed, all of the examples you have provided are still subsequent to both wikiquette alerts opening concerning your conduct. Anyone who accepts your rationale that abruptness is an acceptable response to provocation, must surely note that the time sequence appears that Schrandit was provoked by you. Or have there been prior occurrences you haven't noted? Diffs, please, rather than copy/pastes. Diffs are verifiable. Durova^Charge! 06:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to search history/contributions so I'm not sure how to quickly get what you ask for. What I've found is that this all started at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_abortion&diff=285578568&oldid=285540600, when he inserted "mother" in the place of "pregnant woman". This usage is typical of pro-life propaganda, but has been carefully removed from Abortion and related articles. I reverted his change, identifying it as vandalism because he was intentionally violating WP:NPOV. I was then informed that his actions technically fell short of vandalism, so I retracted my unintentionally uncivil comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_abortion&diff=prev&oldid=285761728) and investigated further.

What I found was a consistent pattern of edits based on pure partisanship, abusing basic tools such as tags and reversions. For example, he's a resident of Delaware, so when he saw what he might think is an embarassing fact about his home state, he removed it. I put it back (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delaware&diff=prev&oldid=285765299) but he showed bad faith by edit-warring instead of taking a moment to click on the link and see that the statement was supported by a relaible source. After a few rounds, a third party copied the reference into the article and thereby forced Schrandit to stop fighting.

He then retaliated by edit-warring over "mother" on Religion and abortion, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_abortion&diff=prev&oldid=285792099. I immediately took the issue to the talk page, creating the section now named "Mother". There, I ran into a !cabal of pro-lifers who somehow saw no problem with the usage. As you might imagine, the discussion was utterly pointless, and if you scroll to the bottom of that section, you'll see an early example of my warning Schrandit not to be uncivil.

Around this time, Schrandit tracks down other Catholic/abortion-related articles that I'm editing, carefully avoiding the heavily-defended Abortion. He jumps in here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_League_(U.S.)&diff=prev&oldid=285782096 to claim that we can't call censorship censorship. Insert your own irony.

I can't track all that happened here or keep it in perfect order, but I've found this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domestic_partnership_in_California&diff=prev&oldid=284119451 in which Schrandit edit-wars to lie about DOMA, reverting without explanation. At that point, I went to his talk page and civilly confronted him: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Schrandit&diff=prev&oldid=284127154. He gave a bizarre nonresponse, but then got warned by an admin about that edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Schrandit&diff=next&oldid=284230329. I'm not sure how that played out, but he managed to avoid a much-deserved block.

Since then, Schrandit has edit-warred not only to preserve the "mother" but he made this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_abortion&diff=286280151&oldid=286279568 edit, in which he used a dishonest comment to mask the fact that he had essentially search-and-replaced every "woman" into "mother". He's been edit-warring to preserve this against consensus, while I've been limiting myself to 1RR, on the advice of a concerned third party.

I could go on and on, but I'm not a wikilawyer and this is very time-consuming. I believe I've demonstrated that Schrandit is a real bad apple, a hardened POV pusher who lies, cheats and insults to get his way. He's insulted and baited me repeatedly, but I have not risen to the provocation or sunk to his level. Whatever minor incivility you perceive in my words is absolutely nothing in comparison to this what it is in response to. The fact that I am being attacked for not being nice enough to this vandal is something I find profoundly disturbing. TruthIIPower (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Or to state this differently, suppose an editor approaches this discussion with good faith and sympathy for your views. Imagine someone who rarely goes near abortion articles, but who agrees that wording such as mother and unborn child is politically loaded and inappropriate. And imagine that editor has been around Wikipedia long enough to make a pretty good estimate of what kind of behavior is likely to get a newcomer topic banned or sitebanned rather quickly. That editor would prefer see you contributing to this subject without getting in trouble, and believes you need to change your conduct. How may such a person approach you credibly and persuasively? Durova^Charge! 06:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's actually very easy. All such a person would have to do is talk without threatening. Note that an ANI is inherently a threat to ban. It might also help if some of the more blatent violations by POV-pushers were blocked. TruthIIPower (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, that's not going to happen. Instead, I'm being given offers I can't help but refuse, combined with more threats. Very unpersuasive. TruthIIPower (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was nighttime in my part of the world and I slept through everything between the last post and this one. What you've shown is a reasonable case that one individual could have been pushing a point of view. The key to an effective response is to slow down and take this less personally. Either that, or else focus one's efforts on areas that don't hit close to home. Durova^Charge! 15:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi, TruthIIPower. I've been reading through the AN/I report and looking at your contributions and I am looking for a way to diffuse this situation so it doesn't end with your being indefinitely banned. I speak from some experience when I say that the route you are on will lead you to a site ban within weeks, if not sooner. So here is my offer. Will you accept a six month topic ban from all American left-right politics articles (defined broadly where left-right are issues in American politics), Catholic articles and articles on global warming? I note that these represent the bulk of your article-space work and they form the major locus of dispute between you and editors you perceive to be POV pushers. However they are not what you work on exclusively.

You may find that editing outside these high-emotion (for all involved) articles is less contentious and less likely to result in acrimony. As a result, I think that the troubles you have been having will be lessened somewhat.

I don't suspect that you will find this proposal very fair. In the sense that fair means "equal treatment", it isn't. I don't intend to find your counterparts in the content dispute and issue similar offers. This is because I don't feel they have comported themselves in a fashion which makes such a drastic move necessary. However I hope you will find me to be an honest broker, at the very least. You may scour my past contributions or talk page comments for bias on the content issues you have discussed or bias favoring editors with whom you have been in conflict. I suspect you will find little to none.

I'm proposing this here because I want you to think about it and to come to a conclusion. If I propose it on AN/I it will turn into a small circus with editors voting on it, decrying the concept of voting on it, and possibly enacting it without warning. However, if you reject this offer and persist in antagonizing those who are in a content dispute with you, another admin or editor may propose a topic ban or simply propose a site ban (as Durova has warned). This is a chance for you to discuss this possible solution, have some input in shaping it, and come to a decision on it without undue pressure (I can't remove the pressure that you have already established). This isn't "take it or leave it". If you feel strongly about a particular facet of this remedy but are amenable to the gist of it, I want to negotiate those particulars. Please, take this change to de-escalate the situation. I will have this page watchlisted, but you may use my talk page if you like. Protonk (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. TruthIIPower (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Then I strongly recommend backing away from the conflicts you have embroiled yourself in, regardless of who appears to be 'threatening', 'POV pushing' or 'edit warring'. Protonk (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See above. TruthIIPower (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the above. The path you've chosen will lead you to an indefinite ban. Protonk (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're either violating WP:CRYSTAL or threatening me. In response, I'm going to ask you very politely to go away and not to post on this page again. No further response is necessary. TruthIIPower (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

One last thought

Your way of communicating with others comes of as self-righteous ("of course they are all wrong"), defensive, and argumentative. From experience, I can tell you that the one who wins a debate on Wikipedia is almost always the one who maintains their cool the best. If you want to resolve the ongoing debates, I suggest that that is what you do. If you find yourself incapable of doing so, I'm afraid that this might not be the place for your method of discourse. Please note that I am not actually endorsing who is right or wrong in the content. I am simply trying to let you know that your method of social interaction here is extremely detrimental to your goals. Awickert (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That depends on my goals. You seem to think I came here to win debates, rather than to speak truth to power. My interest is in the truth, not making friends and influencing people. I therefore have no interest in remaining here at the cost of compromising my mission. I will do more good as a martyr than as a sell-out. For example, I have been informed that Schrandit's goal of becoming an administrator will never come to pass and that the "mother" nonsense will be cleared up, even if I'm not here to take care of it myself. TruthIIPower (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that your goals were to change those articles yourself. I did also assume that you did not want to make friends. But Wikipedia is a place for polite, professional discourse. One other interesting thing about Wikipedia is that it is about fact, not truth. If you are on a mission to spread The Truth (TM), this isn't the place for that. If by truth you mean fact, great. An interesting thing on Wikipedia is that there are very few martyrs, and none that I know of that are month-old accounts, so I'm not sure that that is a productive goal. Awickert (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been polite and professional, even with people who honestly disagree with me. However, it would be inappropriate to pretend that those who act in bad faith are my colleagues here. The way partisans succeed in this sort of environment is by blending in and pretending to be legitimate. Therefore, the most important thing is to take away that protective camouflage. Everything else is ephemeral. In my view, Wikipedia is built on the bones of martyrs and lubricated with their blood. TruthIIPower (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but you've only been here a month. In any case, I would advocate more tolerance, and politely taking action through the appropriate channels if you think it necessary. Otherwise, this present stupidity will escalate and you will most likely face an indefinite en.wikipeda-wide ban. Awickert (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've already explained why this does not particularly concern me. In fact, a topic ban would be effectively identical to an indefinite site-wide ban, as I'm sure Protonk knows.

Interesting guy, Protonk. There's a lot written about him by those who watch Wikipedia. You might find some of it amusing or at least shocking.

I do want to remind you that this is not really about incivility. If incivility mattered enough to be enforced, there'd be a massacre of editors, starting with the administrators themselves. It's been made clear that some of the people I've been allegedly incivil towards are in fact incivil themselves, but you might notice a distinct lack of parity. The real problem is that I refuse to pretend that the administrators here have any sort of genuine authority over me. TruthIIPower (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) To me it is about incivility. It seems to me that you are the one who has generally instigated the incivility, but I don't expect you to see it that way. Awickert (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1 month

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

. yandman 09:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's petty, typical and entirely expected. But, as I said, you have no genuine authority over me. Genuine authority requires me to in some way believe that your actions are legitimate, and no power on Earth make that happen. The best you can do is try to bully me, but there is nothing you can take from me that I value, therefore you can never undermine my integrity. You can't beat someone who won't play your game, and by referencing my announcement that you lack any sort of genuine authority over me as your justification, you have proven my point regarding the actual reason for this block. Thank you!

Don't bother responding, I won't be back, but just as I inherited this watchlist, others will inherit mine. Enjoy your pyrrhic victory. TruthIIPower (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TruthIIPower (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

A month is massive overkill for what should be a warning at most. And, oops, his main reason evaporated.

Decline reason:

You seem to be more concerned with making sure everyone believes you're right and in possession of the moral high-ground than with actually addressing the problematic behaviour that landed you this block. That Protonk is big enough not to worry about your comment is no indication that you won't attempt the same chilling effect with other editors. Block endorsed, and your acceptance or otherwise of any 'authority' is completely irrelevant (other than it indicates that you're having some difficulties with the mote in your eye); all that matters is that you will not be causing further disruption for a while. EyeSerene^talk 11:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I took care to point out that it was the second paragraph ("Interesting... shocking") that ticked me off, not the rest. To be honest, we don't give a damn about your integrity, and none of us feel the need to have authority over you. We don't want to beat you either. We just believe your behaviour is unacceptable. I hope you'll have cooled down in a month. yandman 10:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care what you imagine your excuse to be. Please go justify it to someone who takes you seriously. TruthIIPower (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not really. I keep a link to the good and gentle folk at WR on my userpage to remind me that there is always a place less useful than AN/I. No real harm in mentioning it on his user talk page in itself. Protonk (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hush. Taking away his main excuse won't stop him from manufacturing another one. Bad enough that he lied about edit-warring. I'd say it would undermine his credibility, but that's no longer possible. TruthIIPower (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

After mulling it over a while, I've decided to check; this account is  Confirmed to be Spotfixer (talk · contribs), who has quite a record of civility blocks. I might have stayed mum about that, if not for the apparently (and unfortunately) manic nature of this behavior. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I knew it! That is why I have been referring to this user as madam/spot the whole time. - Schrandit (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my next question. It seems like you could have been a little clearer on this, if you suspected sockpuppetry. However, Spotfixer is not currently blocked, so I don't get what's up with this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, he is blocked, for a month, like his clone here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I knew he was probably a sock this whole time. I was just hopeful he'd come around, but like all of these situations I've ever seen, he was in possession of The Truth (TM), felt free to abuse and attack to spread it, and thinks he's been martyred because this can't possibly be because of his behavior. Awickert (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI response.

He was alluding to simply enacting a topic ban without your consent, rather than asking you to abide by one. Protonk (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

He can pretend to enact anything he likes, but he can do nothing without my consent. He has no genuine authority. TruthIIPower (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are getting this "genuine authority" argument from. Do you believe you have a right to edit here and that others do not have a right to not deal with you? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of MurmurHash

The article MurmurHash has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't really seem to be any reliable sources that talk about this; all the sources linked seem to be blogs and wikis.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Beyond Compare

I have nominated Beyond Compare, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Compare. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)