User talk:Krich/Archive1

Thanks

For your great help in fighting vandalism on Wikipedia Dan100 (Talk) 11:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I dunno how that math tag got there.

My version may not stay up long. Striver will revert to his version. He always does. Zora 08:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

You can take a look at those articles (all of them created by Striver, who goes on jags of article creation) and see if you think that they should be linked. Striver speaks English as a second language (badly) and he can't write very well, so his articles are all lists or copyvios. Perhaps I shouldn't have disposed of them, but I hate directing poor defenseless readers to articles that consist of a chain of linked articles ending in a list with links to a few medieval scholars, and no content. Of course, I've been going head on with Striver for months and I am pissed off and cranky. Take a look at the Ali ibn Abi Talib article if you want to see some interminable debate. Or maybe you don't want to. That's the problem -- people would rather just avoid Striver than deal with him.

If you think I was acting out of pique rather than rationally, restore the lists. Zora 08:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Oh, and as to the classification scheme -- it's true that those are all words that Muslims use, but they argue endlessly about what each one means, and to whom it could be applied. Putting the classifications up there as if they were acceptable to all is just -- nuts. It's as if I were to classify all USAians as "Liberal, conservative, or subversive" and insist that everyone accept my scheme.

There's also a history to the Muslim article in that it keeps growing and being cut down. The definitions of who is a Muslim and what Muslims believe should be in the Islam article. But people who are shot down at the Islam article (which is heavily watched) tend to come over to Muslim and post their rants there. Zora 08:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

but .. but..

arguing is kinda fun.

--Mistress Selina Kyle 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

sorry

Just because people vehemently deny it doesn't make it any less true...

Your major point seems to be that I'm "in the minority", but the fact is that 3 other editors really isn't much... I'll stop for now but I really disagree with how references keep getting aggressively deleted and the article reworded to not say WHO IS ACTUALLY DENYING it (e.g. Thomas Sowell, who's an ECONOMIST for godssake not a psychiatrist, psychologist or any relevant qualifications - It's just his personal view, not one stemming from "research" as the reverted version you endorse says..) --Mistress Selina Kyle 20:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Vending machines and commercial advertising

Stop removing my info and not those others as all you are doing is promoting a bunch of biz ops that is hurting our industry. If you block me I will take up the line to higher atorities and let them know you are not blocking others that may be paying you to promote their website over ours. (This unsigned comment left by Vendweb 12:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC) )

Hi - You've sent me several private emails on this matter. I honestly think I was very polite and reasonable, in the face of some very silly accusations by you that I was being "payed (sic) off" by your commercial competitors to edit here on Wiki. I didn't seem to get very far with you responding in private email, and I actually prefer that Wiki business transpire in public here on the discussion pages - so I'll only respond here in the future.

To answer you yet once again, I was not doing intensive editing of the article you are referring to, Vending machines. I spend a lot of time patrolling the recent edit changes here on Wikipedia to remove instances of vandalism or blatently inappropriate content. I only came across this page because you were inserting large amounts of commcercial advertisement links and direct advertising copy from your web pages - it stood out as I was scanning the changes. I removed those, and noted that other editors had done this in the past, and had attempted to explain to you the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia that applied. I also note that you've since been temporarily blocked for continually reverting those links and advertising copy back into the article.

Nothing was directed against you personally, and I honestly don't have much interest in the subject of Vending machines. If you feel that I've acted incorrectly or unfairly, even after these many attempts to reasonably discuss it with you, I invite you to do as you threatened, and "take up the line to higher atorities (sic)".

Cordially, --Krich (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

???

please don't revert edits on subjects you know nothing about. (This unsigned comment left by Richyard 03:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC) )

I dunno, Rich - you only have one edit, and it's this unsigned comment on my talk page. Want to tell me what you are referring to? I spend a lot of time reverting vandalism, so it's likely I've reverted edits on far more subjects I know little about than those about which I know a great deal. But unless you tell me what has you upset, I'm afraid I can't address your request.

Thanks, --Krich (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Revertion explained on batman

The revertion is explained and i dedicated some extra words to the ones don't agree with it. I hope they don't fit you, I'dont even think so. But i don't thik that stuff reflecks anything worth that much space in the article or is true to the mythos or Batmans wirters intentions at all. Take in mind what's the space for the Joker or Robin... Then again, the section, which is a very valid, real and well documentated opinion is now on the Comics Code Authority were it fits better. I also left a link in the see also" section. So that morbid people can check it out. Remember that people is triing to reduce the space for the batman and superman space and the first thing to go is irelevant stuff. please, check the last discussions on supes and bats discussions pages to understand my point and pocition. I don't like the reduction, but if it is going to happen anyway it better be eficiently done--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 09:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey T-Man. I just got finished replying over on the Batman talk page, when I saw this message from you here. I won't go into it all again, it's over there in detail.

I do think it's worth keeping, and I can't say I agree with all of your comments on the talk page over there, but I'm not reverting back. I had originally reverted because it looked like vandalism, and even though I disagree with you now that I've read deeper, a content disagreement wasn't why I reverted. Thanks, --Krich (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually apreciate you opinion, you have valid points. then again Batman page: 6 paragraphs about him being pedophilic an only mentions of the joker, catwoman the penguin and Robin...c'mon, man you have to admit i have a good point!--T for Trouble-maker 00:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

We disagree, and I wish you hadn't kept removing the material so many times today - but I do appreciate the fact that you have been willing to engage in discussion about it. I think we've both been able to make our opinions and the basis for them pretty clear. Very cool! --Krich (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Check it out. I followed your advise. (according to myself, though)Keep in mind this observations (personal, of course):

1. the info is now not only on the batman page, but also on the CCA page
2. wertham states batman is pedophylic
3. that's his first statement to, THEN establish the Batman-Robin thing is a gay fantasy.
4. the stuff the paragraph establishes is not progay, but totally anti-gay or homophobic
5. neither kane, nor finger, schwartz, sprang, o'neil, timm, dini, burton, west, ward, o'donell, cloney, keaton, kilmer, conroy, wolfman, loeb, matzuda, or eny bat-writer, actor, editor, artist, producer director or true fan has ever intended batman to be gay.
6. the consensus was done some time ago new one can be done

Thanks for the kinda second chance--T for Trouble-maker 21:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

T-man, I'm having trouble now believing that you are really being serious with me. You've done nothing but once again make all of your controversial edits in one large package, and once again fully in the face of a current consensus against your edits. If you aren't going to seriously attempt to work with the other editors and respect it when your edits are uniformly rejected, I'm afraid I'm going to have problems continuing to assume that you are acting on good faith here. I'm reverting your edits once more now. --Krich (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

ok, i see, then do me a big favor, do it yourself. what i care the most is my villains, characters and other media introductions; do something with them with my info, but your style. step into my shoes, i worked them, and keem in mind the section I changed is in two articles now. and that i aded the ambiguosly gay duo and harley and ivy info, which i care for. They seem more truly in pro gay spirit to me. please, please, please!!!!--T for Trouble-maker 22:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Shez 15

When he's blocked from editing as Shez 15, I'm fairly sure now that he edits as 24.86.167.48. He's not going to stay blocked unless you block that IP too. Zora 09:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately (or not, depending on your point of view), I can't block - I'm not an administrator. But this guy requires a lot of cleanup work, replacing image tags after he's vandaized them, etc. --Krich (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The woman was a looney, if she even existed.

Brandy Alexandre Page

I'll do whatever I like with MY page if you will not agree to remove it. It's called Right to Publicity in the US. Look it up.

-- Brandy Alexandre (This unsigned comment was left by SavvyCat 06:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry - even if you are Ms. Alexandre, that doesn't mean the article belongs to you. It's an article about her, not her property.

The article is up for deletion per Wikipedia policies - please allow the process to complete. Blanking the entire article or large sections of it is considered vandalism, and can lead to a temporary block of your ability to edit here on Wikipedia if you continue. Please allow the established processes to proceed.

BTW, if you are Brandy, I was a big fan. Cheers, --Krich (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Brandy Alexandre Page

It is impossible to vandalize my own page. If you want to continue this tug-o-war, fine. But it's a needless waste of energy for something that means nothing to you in the scheme of things except to deprive me of a perfectly valid request. Remove the page or allow the edit. Two choices. Pick one. (This unsigned comment was left by SavvyCat 06:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As I stated above, it's not your page - if you are Brandy Alexandre, it's about you, not your property. The page is up for deletion - whether it is deleted or not is not up to me (or you), but is dependent on the outcome of that deletion process. In the meantime, blanking the entire article, or large sections of it, is considered vandalism, and will result in a temporary loss of your ability to edit, if the behaviour continues.

Please respect the policies and processes of our encyclopedia. --Krich (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Right to Publicity

Krich, please look at Wiki's own article on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

If you want to say I don't have this right, then you are saying that I am not a public figure. In such a case, then the article qualifies for removal. If you agree that I am a public figure, then I have the right to control the use of what is consider private information. I have chosen to remove my private information from the article. I would prefer the entire article be removed, but I will make that compromise. If you continue to interfere with my rights, I will take this up with Jimmy Wales, possibly followed by a letter from my attorney. I'm notorious for that, you know. It might be added to the bio on the page.  ;) (This unsigned comment was left by SavvyCat 06:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC) )

I've read the page, and I believe that you are mis-reading what rights it covers. No one is attempting to use your image or your identity to promote anything. This is an entry in an encyclopedia, and as such, I don't believe this right you are asserting is relevent at all.

And of course, even if it did, we have no way of knowing that you are actually Brandy Alexandre in this informal message exchange.

Please feel free to take this up with Jimbo Wales, your attorney, or anyone else you wish. Just stop deleting the article or major sections of it. Thanks, --Krich (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My Identity

How do you propose to confirm my identity? I am Brandy Alexandre, and the burden of proof is on you to prove that I am not. (This unsigned comment was left by SavvyCat 06:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC) )

Erm, no, it's not. I'm sorry, I've tried to be patient with you, but I've had to bring your continued vandalism to the attention of the administrators. --Krich (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am convinced that SavvyCat is Brandy Alexandre, and recommend respect for her point of view here. I think calling her edits 'vandalism' is, in the current case, unhelpful. As the victim (and I don't use the word lightly) of many bad edits to my own bio, I am very sympathetic to her concerns, and recognize that privacy must play an important part of our policies relating to No Original Research and NPOV and Assume Good Faith.--Jimbo Wales 22:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully Jimbo, that's easy for you to say now. Her edits of the other night were referred to as vandalism at the time because that's what they appeared to be. And although you say that you now believe SavvyCat to be Alexandre, how were editors the night she began blanking portions of the Alexandre article supposed to take that as fact?

I could claim to be Keith Richards - my Wiki username certainly is close, isn't it? I could make a stab at impersonating how I believe people might think he would appear when writing, and then go to the Keith Richards article and blank it, claiming I don't like what it says. When that is reverted as vandalism, I could loudly claim I was Keith Richards, that I am legally allowed to control how Keith Richards information is presented even in reference works, and then begin continually blanking portions of the article when editors begin reverting the blanking as vandalism. How would that be significantly different than what happened when SavvyCat began blanking the Alexandre article the other night?

Anyone could claim to be Alexandre and begin making claims to 'rights' when editing the Alexandre article. Several editors, including the administrator who eventually blocked her for the continued blanking that night, all perceived what she was doing to be vandalism.

If you have good reason to believe SavvyCat to be Alexandre, including private communications with her as she has implied, I'm willing to take that on faith for the moment. That doesn't negate the concerns and action of editors and admins had, given her earlier behaviour, don't you agree? --Krich (talk)

You Don't Know What You're Talking About

That wasn't nonsense. Look it up on Google. (This unsigned comment was left by 69.244.101.177 17:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC) )

Hmmm... where does it say on Google that Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey 'is in fact pimp, yo'? At least cite a source!  ;) --Krich (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

BA Page Edits

Your "edits" and "courtesy" notice are quite transparent as malicious. I'm sorry you wasted so much time on my behalf, but I still side with Jimbo that the less information the better in this case. HE put up the page the way HE thought it should be, and you should not have done anything without consulting him FIRST. I've edited your edits and I expect that not only will you not mess with them again, you will watch the page for anyone vandalising it by putting in information and links the FOUNDER agreed should not be there. (This unsigned comment was left by SavvyCat 22:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC) )

I'm sorry you perceive my attempts to source this article as malicious. I assure you, I have no such ill intent. I came across this article only while I was patrolling recent edits for intances of vandalism. Your attempts to blanks the page, and then sections of it, appeared to be vandalism of the article, because you didn't wish it to exist. That fact than an admisitrator had to block your account from editing for 24 hours should be a small clue that what you were doing that evening didn't conform to Wikipedia rules and polices for editing here.

I honestly and sincerely laid out my personal opinions on the matter of your identidy becoming public. I meant every word, and whether you believe it or not, I am appalled at some of the things that you have been forced to experience.

I'm sorry that consequences have happened because your name was publicized - but as a public figure, I don't think you can stop that any more than Tom Cruise can stop people from knowing his real last name is Mapother.

I took a great deal of time to atempt to source and cite that article. I did the very best I could, and details of the process was posted on the article talk page before I made the edits to the article itself.

I think you also have misunderstood both what Jimbo asserted when he removed most of the article content, and the respective relationship that exists between Jimbo and regular ol' editors like me.

As the founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo has earned enormous respect. However, even he must adhear to Wikipedia policies. You may notice that he goes out of his way to conduct himself in a way that reflects that.

In the case of this article, Jimbo stated that the bulk of the article was unsourced and uncited. Unfortunately, this is a problem with many of the article on Wikipedia, but that is an impetus to properly cource and citethe existing articles, not an excuse to allow uncited work to be included. Once faced with a compaint about an article he found to be largely uncited, he correctly removed the material that was unsourced - with a comment that it should not be replace until it could be sourced and cited. --Krich (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Brandy Alexandre

I think it is deeply inappropriate for us to publish the real name of Brandy Alexandre and people who are in a similar situation to hers. I'm not intending to be the final authority on this point in any given case, but I would like to ask you, as a courtesy, to leave the name out of this article until such time as we've all had time to carefully discuss it.

I haven't had a chance yet to look at where it may have already been published, but for me, trolls publishing it in Usenet is not sufficient, nor is having it repeated at various random websites sufficient. I'd be looking for a print publication of some known legitimacy. (Normally I would say a 'mainstream' publication, but I would say that in this particular subject area, any of several men's magazines like Playboy or Penthouse would be sufficiently mainstream.) --Jimbo Wales 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Are adult film actors not entertainers? Are they not public figures? I don't understand why a person who chooses a professional nom de screen, and a profession that puts them in the public light and arena, can claim that their real name is off-limits.

Alexandre's real name can be found published in many places, including public documents where she has linked her professional and real names. I would not have chosen to publish her name if I were a primary or secondary source myself - but when including public information that others have published in a work of reference, I don't see why adult film actors are entitled to special consideration that other actors and artists are not, just because they have chosen to work in a controversial arena. That some of the sources don't rise to the level of Playboy doesn't seem quite the correct standard here - few sources in this industry could rise to that bar. The information has been publicly published, proven as factual through public documents, and is well-known in the industry in which the subject is most noted for.

I'm truly very sorry that malicious people contacted Alexandre's employer a few years ago, and even more sorry that her employer chose to use her past against her and terminate her job. I would have hated it just as much if a customer of her employers had recognized her from one of her many movies and spilled the beans too - but that is one of the real risks one takes when one chooses to become a public figure, particularly when one chooses a highly public role in a very visible industry that attracts a lot of controversy.

I will not personally re-add the information, but I am concerned that we are now censoring information that is publicly available, because a well-known figure asserts she has special rights to anonymity that other public figures and artists don't enjoy. --Krich (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I should point out to you, Krich, that a public document does NOT mean public domain. I explained the difference to Jimbo as it was told to me by the LAPD. They are public only to those who have legitimate reason to access them. My bankruptcy record, though a "public record," is not public domain, and it was illegally obtained. Meaning someone without a right to access the record such as a creditor, did, and posted the information on the net. Just because the file number is available does not mean you had the right to reprint it. Period. It's called "public disclosure of private facts." I suggest those who want to make these various arguments brush up on the laws that govern them. It seems Wikipedia tries very hard to follow the law, with issues like fair use of box art and the like. Again, just because someone else did it "the horse is out of the barn" and it's all fair game. That's not how it works.

I appreciate the attention, but if you were to take on the opinion of Usenet denizens, I was a minor and insignificant D-list porn star, equal to the Dana Plato of Hollywood, famous only for attempt to become or remain famous. LOL! There is someone there right now who is up in arms about something I said A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, and for whatever reason is peppering his vulgar attacks liberally with associations of my real and stage name. Does that mean it's now public? No. It does mean that the damage wrought by someone like him continues to this day because what's on the net stays there.

Of course, the discussion about the deletion of the page shows other opinions. This is precisely why I think Jimbo is correct that only direct cites from reputable sources, that aren't obviously simply "sources" repeating what another said, should be included. And that includes what others have culled from "public records." You won't find any.(This unsigned comment was left by user:SavvyCat:SavvyCat 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) )

I have to say that I believe your interpretion of the law surrounding public documents is incorrect, not withstanding what some member of LAPD may have told you. Public records are public, unless sealed or access otherwise limited by the court. That doesn't appear to be the case here. But I admit that this is my current understanding of the legal issue, and I'll do more research on it given your assertion.

You mention the issue of box art, and fair use. Wikipedia does work hard to follow fair use rules, and it's my understanding that low-resolution box art is considered to be fair use when illustrating directly related articles. The copyright notice {{dvdcover}} on the image that accompanied the Brandy Alexandre article certainly states that. What is your rationale for the image you removed not being covered by fair use?

Again, I sympathize with the situation in which you find yourself. You've obviously had severe negative consequences as a result of being a professional adult actress. I strongly feel that was wrong, immoral behaviour on the part of those who reported your past to your former employer, and even more so on the part of the employer.

However, I also strongly believe in personal responsibility. You made the willing choice to become a public figure, to allow thousands and thousand of copies of your likeness, your voice, and other features, to be published publicly. You were compensated for being such a public figure. You participated in continued dialogue with the public for years after leaving the adult industry. You had to known, or a resaonable person should be assumed to have known, that it was likely that you could and would be indentifiable from those public images, as a public figure, even a celebrity in your own genre. You cannot now insist that basic facts of your biography are secret. They just aren't, no matter how much easier it would make your life now. --Krich (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Krich, here is a site with a quickie description of public disclosure of private facts tort, the public records issue notwithstanding. I'm looking for a reference for you on that, but should really leave it to you to do your own research since you're the one who claims I am incorrect. --SavvyCat 16:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

SavvyCat, please don't feel under any obligation to do any research on my behalf. I've set these issues aside for a time while I work in other areas, but I'm happy to do my own digging. If you wish to research for yourself, or for the good of the article, I encourage you to do so.

Once again on this issue, I respectfully suggest you are missing the point. If you'll read that page carefully, the examples given are clearly those of private individuals in private situations. That page does not address the different standards that apply to public figures.

Even public figures have rights to privacy - examples I've used in recent days to defend that right to privacy include the right of an actress not to be photographed via long-distance lens in an area that she has every reason to believe is private - or the right of a public offical to keep his sexual activities and/or orientation to himself if he chooses. As modern society "advances", some of these rights are sliding away fast (ir just commonly ignored), but I believe in them, and have fought to help keep them in place.

But certain things are not private when dealing with a public figure instead of a private figure. Their basic identity is one of those basic, biographical facts that just aren't private anymore once a person becomes a public figure. Brandy Alexandre is famous - her likeness and voice have been viewed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. One drawback to that fame is that she is no longer anonymous, and has waived some of her privacy rights by voluntarily choosing to become a public figure - rights that private figures normally have. --Krich (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a citation for that. You've given "examples" ad nauseum, but nothing from a reputable source.--SavvyCat 21:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Retcon/Missionary debacle

Krich, the reason for defending Retcon/Missionary is NOT to excuse the behavior, but to acknowledge the apology. While I can only finally speak for myself, I feel I can also presume that other Witnesses, esp. JW Wikipedians, recognize that someone like this may have smeared his reputation. While honesty is one of the paramount values of our faith, so is forgiveness towards those who are genuinely sorry.

Tommstein and Central are not forgiving people, as evidenced solely by their comments. There is no genuine conciliatory attitude, graciousness, objectivity, or other effort to move forward. Shall we continue to condemn the man, as it were, or just the action? I have yet to read any acceptance at all of Retcon's apology, so I can only assume the above of these two. Every other transgressor of the Wikipedia policies is granted a reprieve if they've payed the price exacted by the admins, and is allowed to continue, with others expected to assume good faith to the largest extent possible. Even if Retcon's reputation is tarnished, at some point "forgiveness" should be expected from others. For Witnesses, to hold such contempt by refusing this both calls for such retribution from God sooner or later, and results in a worse sin, inasmuch as no one is perfect, and everyone errs in some fashion or another at some point in their lives. - CobaltBlueTony 17:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that confuses me. From what I know of JW doctrine, forgiveness is required, but only when the person who has offended has attempted to show true repentance. JW's teach that only god truly knows a man's heart, and therefore can be the only judge of his sincerity. But they also teach that one doesn't have to ignore bad behaviour.

I've said before on the article talk pages that some of the non-JW's have displayed behaviour that appears very aggressive and uncivil at times. I have to say that I'm somewhat shocked to see a few JW's doing the same. I think part of this on both sides is that a couple of the "hard-core" anti-JWs see nothing but evil and deception on that part of the Watchtower Society - and a couple of the "hardcore" JW's refuse to acknowledge the contridictions and vagarities that do pop up within JW doctine and teachings. With both sides so polarized, certain that the other side is made up of fools and puppets, and unwilling to give a single inch in any edit disagreement, it's hard to find a middle ground.

As to the Retcon situation, I stopped following it when he stopped vandalising pages to remove evidence of his sockpuppet behaviour and lies. I'm really not very concerned with the doctrinal arguments that the JW articles spawn - for example, trying to read through the recent mediation request is like trying to read through a transcript of a contentious Libertarian meeting - lots of noisy arguing over interpretations, little content or practical discussion.

To answer you directly, as an outsider, it appears that Retcon's "apology" was insincere at the very least. He was continuing to operate sockpuppets, and lie about it, while he was apologizing with other sockpuppets. He only finally stopped his behaviour after he was completely and red-handedly caught by an administrator who could check the IP history on his many accounts. An even then, Retcon continued to attempt to erase talk page discussions where his behaviour was revealed and documented, all while leaving notes about how sorry he was and that he had been driven to the bad behaviour by the actions of others.

I'm certainly not god, and I can't read his heart - but I can read his actions, and at least at late as a week or so ago when he was active, those were not the actions of a man who wanted his apology to be taken seriously. But as long as he stops doing what he was doing, I really don't care. As long as he follows Wikipedia rules and doesn't disrupt people who are trying to work in good faith on the JW articles, I really couldn't care less. For the moment, I haven't seen him doing it again in the last week, and I haven't commented since.

And I'm sorry, you can't be too surprised if some of the JW's such as yourself lose some credibility in the debates going on, with your continued apologetic and defensive treatment of Retcon. If those JWs had firmly condemned the rulebreaking and the lying, and did not continue to minimize Retcon's deceptions by excusing them (he was being attacked, he got excited, he's sorry, even though he's still covering it up, etc.), I think this negative for the JW "side" could have been turned into a rhetorical positive. As it is, I don't think JW's can be surprised that this incident is used in debate as an example of how some JW's aren't in the article edit discussions in good faith. (And Retcon's actions certainly present themselves as a "stumbling block" to those people the JW's here are presumably trying to Witness to, although that's neither here nor there in the Wikipedia discussion.)

Of course, the same could be said of some of the behaviour of a couple of the non-JW's too - but so far, no one has caught them doing what Retcon did.

To also answer your question, should Retcon return to editing these articles, and edits in good faith following the rules, I won't be bashing him for prior bad bahaviour. --Krich (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's probable that not everyone is reading every page. The when I read enough, I confronted Retcon from a religious as well as academic perspective. (I think the selectively chosen word "damning" reflected my feelings without insulting him.) Likewise, there are pages of evidence I seem to be missing, as well as key statements within arguments I've read that have been the catalysts for arguments I just don't understand otherwise. Nonetheless, I don't know what else needs to be said to Retcon that isn't repetitious at this point, so continuing to harp on it as they seem to continue to be doing is only coming off as unforgiving, vindictive, and unproductive. With the vitriol that has been thrown in our direction without any academic cause, it is difficult to simply condemn Retcon's behavior without looking to "the other side" as provoking -- a skillset they demonstrate repeatedly, which also goes against Wikipedia policies. That is the point at which I now see things. - CobaltBlueTony 03:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

virago

please consider this[1] Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

from 147.188.147.230

I didnt realise. I wont do it again 147.188.147.230 03:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

CVU stuff

Heya CC, I don't think we've spoken before. After speaking up today regarding the membership issue at the CVU page, it has belatedly occurred to me that one or two of the things I've said in my discussions there could possibly be seen by you as a criticism of the work you've done at CVU. If so, please know that isn't true, that's not what I've meant and not what I was trying to convey. You've obviously put in a great deal of work, and as I've said many times today, I found the information gathered there to be a great resource as I was learning to fight vandalism properly. I do certainly have an opinion about how the group could be improved, but that's just an opinion, and in no way reflects on you or the work you have done. I appreciate that work, and I hope you will jump into some of the conversation going on on the talk page there today. Your input would be especially welcome, I'm sure. Thanks --Krich (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont mind criticism, actualy I have to thank you for actualy proving I am not in charge contrary to gossip, :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the bizarre little vandalism on the netsuke page. Cshapiro 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

notice about Arbitration

Krich, Thanks for the "heads up" about the Arbitration. I went to the Request for Arbitration page and could only find a request regarding Tommstein, is this the one? Thanks, SteveMc 16:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not an idiot, even if the user in question has decided to show the arbitrators why they should take the case (or just block him for blatant incivility). Robert McClenon 19:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Krich, thanks for the notice. I almost posted an opinion, but decided not to since it may be interpreted as biased, and therefore influence my actions on the Cabal Mediation page. So I am abstaining. SteveMc 20:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos. Sincerely, SteveMc 20:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mackensen (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)