Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
That you are referring to people as 'gay' is not the issue. The issue is that you are ascribing motives to them, violating Assume good faith and No personal attacks. "I am one of the few people interested in NPOV" in particular is a blatant personal attack on an AfD filled with large numbers of people voting against you. Stop it. --Malthusian(talk) 13:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
There are many effective ways to voice your criticisms. Bashing heads with the community isn't one of them. --DanielCD 05:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
What, pray tell, are these "much more effective ways to voice your criticisms"? When I corrected the article, my changes were overwritten. When I nominated the article for deletion a well-organized group voted it down. So the article remains biased and just plain wrong in many parts. So high school kids writing papers will use Wikipedia for their research, thinking that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not realizing that not only is the information inaccurate, it is deliberately inaccurate.
Disseminating propaganda this way is an abuse of Wikipedia. It will indeed cause the death of Wikipedia. Before long word will get out that extremists are allowed to push their agendas here. Unless Wikipedia puts a stop to it, in two years nobody will remember what Wikipedia was. Lou franklin 13:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Are you really surprised? Instead of trying to convince the editors of your article of the merits of your edits you nominated the entire article for deletion, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Then you claimed that the people voting keep, despite the obvious weakness of your argument (why edit an article if you think it shouldn't be there?) were part of some sort of gay cabal, something you continue to do. And now you've joined the very long line of people who have proclaimed that if Wikipedia does not let them insert their personal point of view tout suite, it will inevitably collapse.
Until you learn to assume good faith and be civil in your dealings with other editors, your contributions will not be taken seriously. --Malthusian(talk) 13:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Unless Wikipedia puts a stop to it, in two years nobody will remember what Wikipedia was.
People were saying this two years ago.
Your frustration is a common one, as are your concerns. Without going to length, I can say that patience is probably the best virtue to cultivate, because it takes time to learn the process. Some people come in, have fits, and leave. Others come in, have fits, settle down, and stick around to become quality editors. The choice is yours.
The whole thing is a process; it's not a cut-and-dried source like other encyclopedias. It is by no means all faults; as with most things, it has both strengths and faults. But you are going to have to do the work it takes to make a case, preferrably addressing one specific issue at a time, not a battery of them. In addition you need published, reputable sources; the stronger they are, the stronger your case. Others have to do this as well, and you are free to challenge their sources in turn, so it's not aimed specifically at you or your opinions, though it may feel like that in the beginning.
When you are hostile and non-specific, people who may completely agree with your views often don't help out because you aren't giving them anything to work with. See if you can't begin by (A) reading the policies as much as you can stand to and (B) finding someone with similar views (look at article edit histories and see who is doing what) and learn the ropes from them/get their assistance in supporting your claims. I hope this gives you a start in the right direction. --DanielCD 17:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just an FYI: The Family Research Institute, NARTH, and many of the other sources you named on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality are known to have cited research that was known to be flawed. You might also note that the Family Research Institute is currently listed as a hate group, which doesn't exactly qualify it as an NPOV source. See their articles, and also Paul Cameron, for more info. I'm letting you know this not to create a big scene, but because, even if I were to ignore additions citing those sources, they're so well known as unreliable that I wouldn't give them five minutes before someone else removed them. If you want sources for your claims, you're going to have to go to more academic waters. -Seth Mahoney 03:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
To avoid yet another incident with you, I'm requesting that we take this to Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. I wont remove the links you have added until some consensus is reached, though I don't claim to speak for anyone else. -Seth Mahoney 04:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Okiedoke. I have nothing in particular to say, but I'd be happy to listen. Lou franklin 04:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Rhobite 05:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
The rule does not apply to the correction of vandalism, and I did discuss them first. Lou franklin 12:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Your reverts were quite blatantly edit warring in a content dispute, not vandalism. Read Wikipedia:Vandalism, it has a very precise definition, and if you continue to make frivolous accusations of vandalism, which is a personal attack, people will continue to assume that you are more interested in pushing a point of view than in improving access to knowledge. --Malthusian(talk) 15:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Societal attitudes towards homosexuality . Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality ). Sceptre(Talk) 17:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Mediators probably aren't going to be able to help, Lou. Both sides have to be willing to agree to some compromise, and, frankly, you don't seem so willing. If you had read what was on Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality immediately above where you inserted the mediation tag, you would have noticed that compromise was exactly what we were trying to do, but compromise doesn't mean saying, "the claims of the AFA, NARTH, etc. are true", because they are, often, demonstrably false.
If I'm right and you're unwilling to compromise, you do have other avenues to try to get help. They include arbitration and filing a complaint here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. However, your position seems so extreme and you so unwilling to even engage in productive dialogue that I don't expect you will find a lot of support. As a third option, you can always return to Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and start some useful dialogue, like copying sections that you have a problem with and explaining in detail exactly what that problem is. "The whole article is biased" doesn't cut it though. -Seth Mahoney 19:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Further to that, you can't expect people to mediate when your request for mediation continues your efforts to characterise those who disagree with you as a gay cabal. Mediation by definition involves give and take and listening to the other party, and if you characterise those against you as an organised group pushing an agenda, then that implies that you have no wish to listen to them - why would you compromise with someone pushing an agenda? If you really want to engage with other editors instead of edit warring with them you're going to have to start assuming good faith and to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground. --Malthusian(talk) 19:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
My position is not extreme at all. My position is that the truth should be told. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am unwilling to engage in productive dialogue, but what type of dialog can be had with people who remove entire sections of text over and over again because they don't want those viewpoints to be heard?
There is no question that there is a group of gay people administering this page. All you need to do is to read their user pages to know that. I characterised them as an organised group pushing an agenda, because that is exactly what they are. Lou franklin 19:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
"I'm not extreme, they are. And I'm willing to engage in dialogue, it's them that aren't". That's been the battlecry of every edit warrior I've seen on Wikipedia. It convinces no-one.
This is the Internet. No-one cares if the people you have a dispute with are gay or straight or whatever, what you need to convince people of is that they're actually inserting false information or removing true information, that the references you've been giving are reliable and neutral, etc. So far I'm still seeing nothing but assumptions of bad faith and digs at people's sexual orientation. Do you actually have any evidence of them collaborating to push an agenda, or does your evidence stop at "They all disagree with me, therefore they must be a united cabal"? What am I, by the way? I've said nothing about my sexual orientation, am I part of the agenda-pushing organised group? --Malthusian(talk) 20:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
What "digs at people's sexual orientation" have I made? Lou franklin 22:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I have twice delisted your Request for Mediation; if you want the request considered, you must follow the format at {{RFMR}}exactly. You are not free to add or omit information; exactly the information required must be provided, no more, no less. In particular, you have included a vast amount of commentary on the dispute; this is not needed and will be removed, as it makes the task of accepting or rejecting mediation requests very difficult. If the mediation is accepted, a subpage will be created, and all parties will be invited to comment there. Commentary before acceptance, however, is not welcome. Additionally, you must identify a list of parties to the mediation, inform them of the mediation using the approved templates, and they must accept the mediation before it will be accepted; this is non-negotiable.
Do not re-add the current form of your request to RfM; doing so is disruptive, and will result in a permanent rejection and potential blocking for disruption. If you would like your request to be considered, you must use the proper format and submit exactly the information required. If you have questions about how to format your request, please ask on my talk page before submitting another request.
For the Mediation Committee,EssjayTalk • Contact, Chair, 22:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have responded to your question on my talk page. Please see the detailed response I have posted there. EssjayTalk • Contact 23:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Never mind, despite the "A request for mediation has been filed" sentence I see that you're supposed to notify us before filing the RfM. --Malthusian(talk) 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have reverted your request, because it was done incorrectly. Please COPY the included template and use the COPY to create your listing. Otherwise you delete the template for future users AND, because the template is invisible, your request will be likewise invisible.
--Calton | Talk 06:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Hi Lou,
Just wanted to warn you that your next edit to replace the quote marks and "so-called" in one section of Societal attitudes towards homosexuality will violate the 3RR rule. This could lead to you being blocked from editing. If you want to revert it again (as I suspect you do), you'll have to wait till tomorrow or risk being blocked.
This is intended as a friendly note, not as any sort of insult or threat. Please don't take it otherwise.
If you want to keep reverting, that's your business. I'm just making you aware of Wikipedia policy so that you wouldn't be caught by surprise by a block. Hbackman 05:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Also note that the 3RR does not give you the right to make three reverts every day. From WP:3RR: "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." You are continuing to make edits when you are aware that consensus is clearly against you making those edits. That is edit warring and you may still be sanctioned for it even if you do not make four reverts in a 24 hour period. --Malthusian(talk) 15:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I note in particular that you missed explicitly violating 3RR with your 'so-called' edits by about half an hour [1][2][3][4] . This is exactly the kind of behaviour that will get you blocked for gaming 3RR if repeated. --Malthusian(talk) 15:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Um. I notice you're back, and reverting. Breaking the 3RR guarantees you a block; staying within the letter of the law but continually reverting thrice a day against a clear consensus against you does *not* guarantee a lack of block. Indeed, it will probably get you blocked for pointless disruption if you continue. Please don't risk it William M. Connolley 21:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC).Reply
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Rory096 03:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.
and
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.
Please assume good faith and do not call edits that try to maintain NPOV vandalism. Perhaps it is "misguided or ill-considered," but it is with community consensus behind it, and it is an attempt to improve the article, not to destroy it.
There was no "community consensus". My text was removed whole-hog without any discussion whatsoever on the talk page. I would have assumed it was a mistake, but the comment in the history proved it was not so. My changes were perfectly legitimate. Give it a rest. Lou franklin 04:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Okay. After going back and taking a look at it again, I will admit that that specific edit was not specifically addressed on the talk page. However, I contend that there is a community consensus against asserting opinions as though they are facts ("Homosexuals have the same rights, with the same restrictions, as everyone else. Homosexuals have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process under the law, the right to engage in commerce, to enter into contracts, own property, vote, along with a host of other rights. Same-sex 'marriage' is not a civil right because homosexuality is not a civil right.") and other POV ("Many people feel that the term "LGBT civil rights movement" is a misnomer and a lame attempt to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement." -- you could use a much more neutral word than "lame," or you could simply remove it -- why is that particular modifier necessary, other than to make the text cast a certain interpretation on the subject?).
You might want to suggest on the talk page (or just try) posing the first quote with which I take issue as "[these people] argue that homosexuals have the same rights, with the same restrictions... etc." -- that would be less POV.
Look at the link. I have used the quotes verbatim. Lou franklin 04:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
You did not incorporate them as quotes, however; you incorporated them without quotation marks, which makes them read as statements of fact. Put quotation marks around them and say that "so-and-so says, 'Homosexuals have the same rights...'", and you should be okay. In the future, you should make sure to put quotes around material directly taken from other places (and only take direct quotes when they are truly illustrative, and not very long), because putting them as your own words (without indicating that they were said by someone else) is plagiarism. Hbackman 04:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
It's not plagiarism. The information provided is correct no matter who said it, and the cite is directly following the information anyway. Lou franklin 04:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion
Okay, have a look at the article now. I've incorporated your edits, and started a section specifically for criticisms of the LGBT civil rights movement (though it may be changed later as I work through the gay rights movements as a historical phenomenon). And again, please do not refer to other editors' contributions as vandalism unless they fit the definition I know you've been shown repeatedly. Its just bitchy. -Seth Mahoney 04:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Do you feel that this statement is inaccurate: "some homosexuals lack a moral foundation and would engage in vulgar behavior such as using obscenities in front of children"? Why was that removed? Do you think if I looked around long enough I could find supporting evidence of that statement? Lou franklin 04:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
You may be able to find supporting evidence of the latter part of the sentence, but the sentence implies a difference between gay and straight people that just isn't there, since I could go and find evidence to support the statement "some heterosexuals engage in vulgar behavior such as using obscenities in front of children". A truly accurate sentence would be "some people engage in vulgar behavior such as using obscenities in front of children". -Seth Mahoney 04:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Look around. Do you see any straight people using obscenities in front of children? Do you see any gay people using obscenities in front of children? You tell me. Lou franklin
I have straight friends who have used obscenities in front of children. My father, who is definitely straight, used obscenities in front of my sister and I when we were young. So yes to both. Being gay has nothing to do with the sort of language one uses in front of children. That depends on one's personality and moral code. Hbackman 06:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you're referring to the use of the word 'cocksucker', then I would have to say yes to both. Do I have to point out every time you have used the word on Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which is accessible to children? -Seth Mahoney 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Do you honestly see no difference between initiating the gratuitous use of the word in an article, and using the word on a discussion page in an effort to get it removed? Lou franklin 04:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Are you asserting that context matters when determining whether or not use of an obscenity counts as obscene? -Seth Mahoney 05:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Now you're just being silly. The discussion on the talk page was obviously in response to the obscenities in the article. Many fewer people will read the discussion page than will read the article. But let's split the difference and remove the obscenity from both the article and the discussion page. Lou franklin 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
1. We can't remove it from the talk page. Its there permanently. That's the way things work.
2. No, I'm not being silly, and you're not answering the question. Is context relevant in determining when it may or may not be proper to use an obscenity? -Seth Mahoney 05:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are being silly. I can't very well ask that a word be removed if I don't say what the word is, can I? Lou franklin 05:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
You're still not answering the question. Is context relevant in determining when it may or may not be proper to use an obscenity? -Seth Mahoney 05:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Also, as Rhobite pointed out on the talk page, this statement appears to be a direct reference to the fact that consensus was in favor of the word "cocksucker" remaining in the article. See WP:POINT. Hbackman 04:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks again for sharing. Lou franklin 04:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please change "Many people feel that the term 'gay rights' is a misnomer" to "Many people feel that the term 'LGBT civil rights movement' is a misnomer". Lou franklin 04:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
What the hell was this [6] about, [removed - WMC]? I try to incorporate your edits into the article, as an act of compromise, and you accuse me of reverting your changes 3 times in an attempt to get me banned? -Seth Mahoney 17:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
However, I agree the 3RR report looks like bad faith. But 3 admins agree that it won't be actionned. William M. Connolley 23:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC).Reply
The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours. If you find you have reverted more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem and you should try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, starting with the article's talk page.
also, from the 3RR reporting page:
...just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day
Click the four links that all say "March 1". Are those from March 1st, or are two of them from other dates? This is yet another example of how this extremist group games the system. Do you think it is an accident that those four links were made to say "March 1" when they are not from "March 1"? Lou franklin 13:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
The times for the report are correct for an editor reporting from Eastern Standard Time. If you are in another time zone, some of the edits may appear to fall on different dates. (From the west coast of North America, the first revert would appear to fall on February 28, local time; from Europe the last revert would seem to be on March 2.) In the article history display, editors see times and dates that are adjusted for their local time preferences.
The actual dates aren't important for the reverts. For a violation of the 3RR to occur, the reverts must all take place within the same twenty-four hour period. That is indeed what happened for the edits cited, even if from where you are the reverts fell on two successive calendar days.
The best way to avoid being blocked for a 3RR is to use the article talk page to discuss controversial changes and to follow the one-revert rule. The latter isn't policy, but it's an excellent way to keep disputes from overheating. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
The 3RR report was falsified. Here is what the links on the 3RR report were made to look like:
1st revert: 1-Mar-06 00:21
2nd revert: 1-Mar-06 06:23
3rd revert: 1-Mar-06 08:34
4th revert: 1-Mar-06 21:43
But when you click on the link that says "1st revert: 1-Mar-06 00:21" you'll find that the actual time was "14:40, 28 February 2006". When you click on the link that says "4th revert: 1-Mar-06 21:43" you'll find that the actual time was "01:58, 2 March 2006".
As luck would have it, those four links that made the revisions look like the they were all on "1-Mar-06" were typed in incorrectly. Those four posts did not "all take place within the same twenty-four hour period", and it doesn't matter what time zone you are in.
And obviously if it is 00:21 UTC, it isn't 14:40 in any other time zone. You falsified the 3rr report (and you didn't even do a good job of it).
You guys are unfair, but at least you are consistently unfair. Lou franklin 03:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
You must have clicked on the wrong links. Those times are all accurate, and they represent 4 reverts within 24 hours. Here are the diffs copied from the 3RR page:
That is incorrect. Click on the first link, what date and time does it say?
Then click on the last link. What date and time does it say? Lou franklin 03:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
"Revision as of 21:21, 28 February 2006" and "Revision as of 18:43, 1 March 2006." The dates and times are referring to the revision in the the right-hand column, not the left-hand column. Hbackman 03:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) Yeah, the left-hand column gives you the timestamp of the previous user's edit. The timestamp of your edit is on the right-hand column, and that's what's important in this case. It can be confusing if you're not familiar with the wiki software. Rhobite 04:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for clearing that up, but I still contend that it is a bad-faith 3rr report. Look at the 3rd modification I made. I changed "Some attack the term 'LGBT civil rights' as a misnomer" to "Some say the term 'LGBT civil rights' is a misnomer". That is not a revert, and is a perfect example of how I have improved the article. Lou franklin 04:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Which means you may want to leave a response here [7]. -Seth Mahoney 03:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I can't. You guys booted me. I can't edit it. Funny that they already started voting, huh. Lou franklin 04:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you want to leave the message here, I'd be happy to cut and paste it over there. -Seth Mahoney 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Guess not. Well, I'll check back before I go to bed in case you change your mind. -Seth Mahoney 04:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
They haven't started voting yet. They're just saying whether they want to arbitrate the case or not. It'll be a little while before they start figuring out their final decision. Hbackman 05:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I considered waiting until you were unblocked, but given that you start edit warring the moment your blocks expire, I wasn't confident that I'd file it before you got yourself blocked again. --Malthusian(talk) 09:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have been following the arbitration case resulting from the controversy over the societal attitudes toward homosexuality article but not participating. I agree with some of the other "moderate" points of view that the original article was nothing but a gay-rights puff piece, and that progress is being made. However, it appears to me that you are doing both yourself and balance on homosexuality more harm than good. Please try to listen to me.
I do not agree with your views on homosexuality, at least not entirely. I am not an evangelical, and I disagree with the evangelical critique of homosexuality, but I also disagree with the view that homosexuality is "normal". (I am more inclined to agree with Pope Benedict XVI.) I am a member of the Association of Member Advocates, and I am willing to act as your advocate in this arbitration, if you are willing to cooperate with me. The basic question is whether you actually want to participate in Wikipedia and provide balance against a gay-rights agenda.
At this point, it appears that you are asking the ArbCom to involve themselves in what is known as a content dispute, that is, for the ArbCom to order the article deleted or changed. I think that there should be some binding method to resolve content disputes, but that is not what the ArbCom does. It resolves user conduct disputes. At this point, your best defense is, in my opinion, to admit that you have been uncivil in the past, and that you have engaged in personal attacks and in POV-pushing, but to state that you have been no worse than your opponents. Here will be the unpleasant part. You will have to identify which of your opponents have engaged in attacks on you and have been pushing a gay-rights agenda. What we can then hope for is to have all of you given a second chance to work together on that article, and other articles that are unbalanced.
What I would ask is that you stop arguing in the Evidence section, and let me do the reasoning for you. Do you want to participate in Wikipedia, within its own peculiar framework and rules? If so, please try listening to some of us. Let me know whether you want an advocate. Robert McClenon 13:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the note. I am not all that familiar with the way that Wikipedia works or what an advocate does. It would certainly be easy to identify who has engaged in attacks and has been pushing a gay-rights agenda. But if the article is not deleted, how will having a "second chance to work together on that article" produce any different results? 90% of the editors are gay advocates hell-bent on misusing Wikipedia for their own PR purposes. Even if we started from scratch, the article would end up in the same state because the same group of editors have as their objective to make it pro-gay.
The request for deletion of the article was rejected because that same gay group just voted it down en masse. That obviously wasn't a fair process. If ArbCom won't involve themselves in content disputes, isn't there somebody in the Wikipedia community that cares about the integrity of Wikipedia? Clearly the right thing to do is to remove the article. Isn't there some other way to get the article removed? Lou franklin 13:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block [8] is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 09:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please add this to the top of the article:
{{POV}}
I will comment about it on the talk page once my block is lifted.
Obviously there would be no need for me to apply the same changes over and over again if my changes had not been reverted. Lou franklin 03:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion
Very cute. It's probably a good thing that I'm calm-tempered. I'll leave it up, since it's against policy to remove warnings from one's own talk page, but I am going to note your action in the arbitration, and it won't reflect well on you. Hbackman 03:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
What picture are you trying to paint by using the word "cocksucker"? What image does that evoke in the readers' mind?
It powerfully evokes a sense of the kind of bigotry prevalent in that era and since that era. I can understand why you don't want that to be evoked. I'm sure it's a bothersome thought for you. But it's important. I'm just as determined as you are, Lou. You aren't going to make me stop editing. Hbackman 04:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
That is not at all the image that word evokes and you know it. Lou franklin 04:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are the one who used obscenities. Don't blame me. Lou franklin 03:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I just reverted vandalism to the article in the form of blanking. Hbackman 04:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am used to confronting abuse of power, Lou. I cut my teeth under totalitarianism - and saw it collapse under the weight of its self-deception. Best regards, Haiduc 03:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Um, want to run that by me again? Is there something in your statement that explains why it's OK for you to use obscenities? Lou franklin 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
To reiterate one more time, since you've apparently forgotten the talk page discussion about this: Wikipedia is not censored for minors. There is an article called Fuck, for goodness' sake. Hbackman 04:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
And you don't see any difference between obscenities in an article that's very title is an obscenity versus gratuitous swearing at unsuspecting readers? Lou franklin 04:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm not going to repeat the talk page. It has been explained there why the use of "cocksucker" is not gratuitous. I've got better things to do with my time than copy and paste. Hbackman 04:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Did somebody ask you to copy and paste? Wikipedia has that obscenity tag for a reason. What picture are you trying to paint by using the word "cocksucker"? What image does that evoke in the readers' mind? Lou franklin 04:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm especially not going to copy and paste when you can look three inches higher on the screen and see my answer to the questions that you just copied and pasted. Hbackman 04:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
It had already been established that McCarthy "used accusations of homosexuality as a smear tactic". It had been established that he "was playing off of prevalent anxieties about sexuality". There is no need to evoke that image in the reader's mind - especially when there is nothing preventing children from reading the article. That's not a terribly compassionate thing to do. 04:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
a) Wikipedia is not censored for minors, as has been pointed out to you multiple times; b) an evoked image or emotion brings the concept home in a stronger way than anything else could do; c) What does compassion have to do with anything here? How is it not compassionate to say the word "cocksucker" where a child might come across it -- for that matter, how is it compassionate to not say "cocksucker" where a child might come across it? You're trying to twist words around again to gain an advantage based on irrational emotional appeal rather than reasoned argument. Hbackman 04:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Decent people don't evoke the image of cocksucking in the minds of children. Did you really need that explained to you? Lou franklin 04:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Decency is not the same thing as compassion. And I am going to cut and paste just this once: Wikipedia is not censored for minors, as has been pointed out to you multiple times. It is not our responsibility to keep children from reading specific articles. It is their parents' or guardians' responsibility. Hbackman 04:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
How exactly would a parent know that an article entitled "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" would include a discussion of cocksucking? Are you saying that the parent must read every single word before allowing their kids to read it? Is that really reasonable?
It sounds like you are saying that are you a compassionate person, but you seem to be admitting that you are not a decent person. Is that what you are saying? Why would you want to put that image in a child's mind? Lou franklin 04:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Don't make personal attacks by implying that I am not a decent person. The intent of that sentence is not to "put that image in a child's mind," it is to serve as a powerful example of the sort of bigotry extant at the time -- and still extant today. This conversation is seriously devolving into inanity. If you can ask me something relevant that I do not have to repeat what I or others have already said to answer, I will answer. Other than that, I think that this conversation is finished because it is becoming a waste of my time and yours. Hbackman 04:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'll take you at your word that "the intent of that sentence is not to 'put that image in a child's mind'". But you would agree that it is the effect, wouldn't you? Lou franklin 04:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
As a reminder to you, per policy Wikipedia is not censored...and considering that appears to be a direct quote, censoring it also goes against the wikipedia profanity guideline. In my judgement as an administrator, any {{obscene}} warning templates placed on user talk pages from this should be discounted. --Syrthiss 13:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. [9]
That is clearly not the case here. It had already been established that "open homosexuality was taboo", and that "many politicians treated the homosexual as a symbol of antinationalism". It had already been established that politicians were "construing masculinity as patriotism and marking the unmasculine homosexual as a threat to national security". It had already been established that "McCarthy used accusations of homosexuality as a smear tactic in his anti-Communist crusade" and that he was "linking Communism to homosexuality" and "playing off of prevalent anxieties about sexuality in order to gain support for his anti-Communist campaign". All of those facts had already been established and were not in dispute.
Omitting the word "cocksucker" in no way "causes the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate". Why don't you use your "judgement as an administrator" to comply with the policy and remove the word from the article? Lou franklin 13:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is a direct quote from source. Perhaps McCarthy should have thought of the children before he said it. As to what I take as an objection to my "administrator" comment, would you rather I say "as someone who has been confirmed by the community as having a good grasp of the community policies"? --Syrthiss 14:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Do you have any idea how many foul direct quotes could be included in this article? There are many people who could be quoted who have called homosexuals "fags", "carpet munchers", "diesel dykes", "fudge-packers", etc. Let's have some dignity and not go down that road, shall we? The reader doesn't need a section about gerbils in order to understand about "societal attitudes towards homosexuality". Nor does the reader need to see the word "cocksucker" in order to understand what McCarthy was trying to accomplish.
The policy says that obscenities "should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate". That is clearly not the case here. Having "a good grasp of the community policies" starts with reading comprehension. Lou franklin 17:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Lou,
Thank you for taking the time to write me a well-written and intellegent response to my comment. Generally speaking, a response like this indicates to me that there exists a legitimate concern in the mind of the complaintant and, quite possibly, in reality. As such, I have taken the time to investigate your arbitration case to see what concerns you may hold, and if any of them hold any water.
First, you seem to be very outright with your viewpoint that the article in question is dominated by, as you put them, gay extremists. I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but the article was in fact biased. Coming from an editing background, I can assure you that there will never be a completely neutral article. This holds especially true to topics of this nature, the so-called "controversial" articles. Anything that deals with politics, religion, sexuality, warfare, genetic engineering, morality, large computer corporations, et certera, will forever be locked in a war of bias. Think about it this way: you can only push for neutrality. You can't ask for perfection.
What I found interesting was how this entire arbitration case formulated against you. By making enough editors upset, you forced the article to become more neutral, albeit alienating yourself in the process. I understand that simple words don't always work, but as Buzz Aldrin showed Bart Sibrel one rather glorious day, it sometimes take a push to get a message across. That being said, you should take a few things into consideration first:
Be nice to other editors, even when you completely disagree with them. Do what you did with me: you wrote me a nice, thought-out note, and you made a very good impression on me. By being assertive yet civil, you will get your point across a lot smoother.
Don't use absolute terminology. I'm talking about things like "gay extremists". I'm not saying that some people aren't a little extreme to one end or the other (heck, some people are extremely extreme!), but think about a bell curve. Most editors are actually normal, well-meaning individuals, and blanketing them with a title such as gay extremists will not make them want to consider your position.
If after reasonable attempts at getting people to consider your take fail, seek a request for comment. Once again, be nice about it. Show an open mind and a willingness to compromise. If you're likable and non-abrasive, you will get results.
I'm sorry to see that you're in arbitration now. I'm fairly certain that you mean well, although you've had a rough time as you began. A thought for you to consider: Wikipedia is not perfect, and neither are it's editors. Articles will have bias, and it's up to people such as yourself to identify and gently bring up problems to the attention of others. Become increasingly adament when a gentle note isn't effective. If your default volume is set to high, an even higher level will fall upon deaf ears.
If there is anything else that you want to ask, please feel free to page me again.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I suggest you read m:MPOV and see how this applies to your situation. --69.117.7.126 05:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you have something to add, have some intestinal fortitude and sign your name to it.
True or False: The large majority of the editors who maintain the article are gay.
True or False: I have uncovered so many errors and so much bias in the article that even they admit it is not impartial. [10]
If you believe that this is a neutral article created by impartial people then you are not paying attention. Lou franklin 11:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion
I'm not sure whether you're at all interested in contributing to Wikipedia more generally, but if, failing this article's deletion (which, I suspect, isn't going to happen), you're actually interested in having the article improved, I have a suggestion. There are several editors currently working on the article (I don't want to hear about the "protestantism and natural disasters" thing or the link to so-and-so's website - they're gone, and they're staying gone) who are, believe it or not, interested in creating a useful and informative and NPOV article out of what was once, we all agree, not useful, not informative, and not NPOV. Maybe it would be best for all involved if, assuming you aren't forced to by arbitration, you stepped back from the article for a month or so and worked on other articles that you're interested in - I'm sure there's some article on a topic you're very much interested in that could use work - and let us work on the article. Then, after that month has passed, come back to the article, and offer your opinions. I suspect spending a month working on less heated topics would give you a better feel for how people respond to your style of debate, and maybe give you some pointers on how to get your point across less aggressively, and give us some much-needed cooldown time, so that when you came back it would be easier to hear what you have to say (given that you keep in mind that how you say something can be as important as what it is you say). I know that, speaking for myself only, you've pretty much driven me from the article until arbitration is over - I'm doing some research right now, but nothing is going to appear there until I no longer feel as if every sentence I write is going to be contested, and every time I disagree with you I'll be accused of acting as the writing hand of some crazy gay terrorist organization. That's unfortunate, for Wikipedia, and for your cause, because I'm a good editor. I'm one of the few who uses (and demands) citations heavily, which is, I would think, something that you would want to happen, so there will be no more random, POV claims. I also suspect there are other editors who feel similarly. We're not all here to push some agenda (some people are, but most of the people you're debating with now aren't). We're here because this is a topic we're interested in, and for most of us, it is a topic we have spent a lot of time studying. Anyway, that's my suggestion: Take a break from this article (it will be here when you come back, and hopefully will be better), and spend some time working on other articles you're interested in (if you can find some, stubs that you're interested in are great - give me a message if you want some help finding stubs in a certain topic), and then come back after you've given us a chance to improve it. Give it a thought. -Seth Mahoney 17:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Who are these "several editors currently working on the article"? It's fine that you "don't want to hear about the 'protestantism and natural disasters' thing", but obviously if we ask those same editors to rewrite the article we will end up in the same place. Won't we?
1. Most of the editors you are currently arguing with are the "editors currently working on the article". Haiduc and myself have made particularly large contributions to the article, but there are many others currently working on it.
I understand you "didn't write the original article". But you didn't correct it either. I will respect your request not to "hear about the 'protestantism and natural disasters' thing or the link to so-and-so's website", suffice to say there was a long list of absurd statements made in the article. You may not have written all of them, but let's be honest: you didn't correct the problem, and neither did Haiduc. Forgive me if I wonder how the same editors could produce an article any better than the old one. Lou franklin 23:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
2. We aren't asking any group of editors to rewrite the article. That's the way wikipedia works - people work on articles they are interested in, they aren't assigned them.
3. Even granted #2, most of the editors currently working on the article are not the same editors who originally wrote the article. That's also the way wikipedia works.
Your point seems to be that there is no sense in dwelling on the ludicrous statements that have been removed from the article. But if we assign the same people who wrote that drivel to write more, what results should we expect?
1. See #2 above.
2. See #3 above.
You see yourself as "a good editor", and maybe you are. But how could you have allowed those things to have been included in the article? I agree that there is no sense in belaboring things that are no longer a part of the article, but I think we should be honest about who allowed them in. Otherwise we will just go right down that same road again. Won't we?
1. I didn't write the original article. It ended up on my watchlist fairly recently.
You must admit that many of the statements made in the article (both in past versions and in the current version) do sound like "some crazy gay terrorist organization". Look through this article. The "POV claims" have been anything but "random".
I'm not sure which passages you're talking about (in the current article).
It's great that you want to spend a month rewriting the article - it could surely use it. But what is the objection to making the current article neutral until then? Why couldn't the introduction, for example, be made neutral until then?
Your edits aren't making the article more neutral. Your demands are to remove factual information that explains certain claims in the introduction, claims which are further exemplified later in the article. Your demands for the article are often to give primacy to a particular, negative POV at the expense of factual, neutral information (name, for example, one claim in the introduction that is POV - if it is, in fact, POV, I'll remove it myself).
I will take you up on your offer. The introduction is a lame attempt to normalize homosexuality by highlighting pro-gay societies and downplaying societies that disapprove of homosexuality. Ntennis also made this same point on the discussion page:
Personally, I find it odd that editors want to insert counterclaims like the one above every time a sentence documents any social disapproval toward same-sex sexuality. For me, what is really missing from the lead section is an adequate acknowledgment of how widespread such disapproval is and has been for much of recorded history. Do some editors working on this page think it is homophobic to acknowledge this?
The second sentence talks about how "some [cultures] expect all members to engage in same-sex behaviour" - the second sentence!. Very few cultures "expectall members to engage in same-sex behaviour". If there ever was such a culture, it could be mentioned in the article but it certainly doesn't belong on the second line of the introduction!
I have made no demands "to remove factual information". I added balancing examples to the introduction but they were removed because they were said to be "highly idiosyncratic". Yet the examples of cultures that "expect all members to engage in same-sex behaviour" and "the samurai class of pre-modern Japan" and "Sulawesi cultures" and "Sambia boys in New Guinea" were not considered "highly idiosyncratic" and remain in the introduction. Can you honestly say that those examples are not highly idiosyncratic?
I believe the intent isn't to add examples of cultures because they support or require homosexual/homosexualish acts in order to create a pro-gay article, but to explain some of the claims that, from the perspective of a person in our culture, sound dubious or downright absurd. So these examples are included in the introduction because they are unusual, but in order to help explain certain claims and lay the conceptual groundwork for the rest of the article. It is a little unusual to have specific examples in opening paragraphs, but not unheard of, and it doesn't immediately suggest POV. Remember also that NPOV does not require that every claim or example be "balanced" by a counterclaim or counterexample.
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. [11]
Examples should not be included in the introduction "because they are unusual". The fact that this approach created an introduction that highlights pro-gay societies and downplays societies that disapprove of homosexuality is very concerning to anybody who cares about the neutrality of the article. Lou franklin 02:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
My balancing examples are listed here: [12]. Please add them.
The article says that social institutions "have in extreme cases have supported a death penalty". The word "extreme" is a matter of opinion. It is clearly POV. Thank you for offering to remove it.
I don't think calling death an extreme penalty is really all that POV - there aren't many more extreme penalties than permanantly ending a person's life.
The word "extreme" refers to the cases, not to the death penalty. It says "in extreme cases". Lou franklin 02:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
The article contains so much bias and propaganda that we could spend a long long time discussing all of it. I haven't even gotten out of the introduction yet! We haven't even begun talking about "The LGBT civil rights movement", gratutitous cursing in the article, etc., etc., etc. Lou franklin 23:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
"The article contains so much bias and propaganda" is absolutely not helpful. Only specific examples help to change articles, and you have to keep in mind that sometimes, even though you might think something is biased, the community will disagree with you, and you'll just have to accept that decision. You also might keep in mind that, as a human being, you are capable of misjudging the situation.
The talk page is littered with specific examples. But for some mysterious reason "the community" disagrees. They also disagree that there is any disagreement. [13][14][15][16][17]
But I am sure that this community is operating in good faith. Isn't it a coincidence that these people, who are not an organized group communicating by email, all decided to remove the POV tag at the same time. Isn't it also an interesting coincidence that no one editor removed the POV tag more than 3 times. It is also an interesting coincidence that the introduction has many so many pro-gay examples that lay the conceptual groundwork for the rest of the article.
According to whom do we communicate by email? -Seth Mahoney 03:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have tried the "get your point across less aggressively, and give us some much-needed cooldown time" approach. It didn't work. Although I object to the propaganda contained in the current article in the strongest possible terms, I could see we weren't getting anywhere so I stopped editing the article until the arbitration process is completed. It was clear that y'all weren't going to budge so out of respect for the arbitration process, I added a POV tag and stopped editing until they reach a decision. What I got was a bunch of tag-team revisions of the POV tag, one that explained "I see that the edit wars have subsided for the moment" (8 minutes after I had just reinserted the tag).
I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about. You've, in my experience, been aggressive since the beginning, with no lagtime, either with the article itself or on the talk page. My suggestion wasn't just for cooldown time, though, but for you to try editing other, less controversial articles in order to get some experience with the way things work. I don't really want to argue the pros and cons, though - it was a suggestion, which you are welcome to take or leave.
I did not touch the article from March 15 - March 24. Lou franklin 23:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Must have been during my break from editing.
I have not "pretty much driven you from the article". I have pointed out bias and errors in the article. We have all agreed to that point. You are responsible for making your own choices. Nobody can force you to stop working on an article. Make your own choices, but don't blame others for your decisions. Lou franklin 23:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree that we're all responsible for our choices, but no one can deny that we make choices in response to the world around us. Unfortunately for me, my world currently includes your, let's face it, abusive commentary (accusations of vandalism, bad faith edits, conspiring to create a POV article, etc.), and given that I have a real life to worry about, my choice was the only responsible one given the situation. All I'm asking for is some time to work on the article without that abuse, after which you can return and offer all the (respectful, considerate, and usefeul) criticism you want. I guess, though, after arbitration its not going to matter much. -Seth Mahoney 21:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
That may be so. After arbitration there may not be an article to edit.
I'm really not trying to debate here, but I wouldn't get your hopes up. The arbitration committe just doesn't delete articles. They are there in order to address user conduct issues, not article content issues. The mediation committe, though they don't enforce rulings, is there to address article content issues (among other issues), but they aren't going to delete the article either, because it is their job to resolve disputes, not take sides in disputes. AfD and speedy delete (and you're just not going to get a speedy on that article) are really the only mechanisms for getting an article deleted, and to get that to happen you need a lot of community support.
I don't believe that there is nobody in the Wikipedia community that cares about the integrity of Wikipedia. Lou franklin 02:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
What is your opinion about how "respectful" and "considerate" this group of editors has been with respect to the removal of the POV tag? You know that the neutrality of this article is disputed, yet they removed the tag anyway. Does that strike you as "respectful" and "considerate"? Despite the fact that Ntennis just added a section about "citations and verifiability" to the talk page, and despite the fact that you are completely rewriting the article, the "the neutrality of this article is disputed" statement was removed. Yes or No: was that "respectful" and "considerate"? Who did that serve. The reader? Lou franklin 23:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Do not confuse me with other editors. I supported leaving the POV tag there, if you'll recall. We are not, you should keep in mind, just one faceless, gay mass, but individuals acting according to individual interests and toward individual goals (I was only dimly aware of the article until about a week before you showed up). Further, it doesn't matter how respectful and considerate (scare quotes or not) other people are. You are still expected to retain a certain level of civility, which has rarely been something you've seemed concerned with at all. You stormed into the article like a bull in a china shop, yelling about extremist gays and bias and agendas, never once even trying to presume good faith on the part of the editors currently working on the article, and never once addressing any of us as anything but a mass of gay out to pervert the world. You don't raise points, you argue like a sophist. You don't work with communities, you attempt to break them apart. That said, these are really common traits among new editors to wikipedia, which is why I suggest that you spend some time on other, noncontroversial articles in order to get a better feel for building consensus and working within existing frameworks. -Seth Mahoney 00:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you are truly interesting in neutrality, reinsert the POV tag. You said that you "supported leaving the POV tag there", so do the right thing and add it. You know that "the community" will only get the respect that it deserves, and you know that what they have done here is wrong. You know that the neutrality of the article is in dispute, just as the tag says, so do the right thing and reinsert the tag. Lou franklin 02:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
You have a lot to learn about getting people to do what you want, if that's your best approach. -Seth Mahoney 03:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
You'd be surprised at how many people will do something just because it is right. But you are much too smart to fall for that. Lou franklin 03:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
You'd be surprised at how many people become much more reticent to do something that someone tries to force or bully them into doing, right or not.
I've said it several times before, and most of them I think you've removed from your talk page, but I'll say it again: If you're polite and respectful, and if you acknowledge that other people do have other points of view, you've got a much greater chance of getting people to actually listen to you.
Hbackman, whose interests are you serving? The readers' interests or the authors' interests? You know that the neutrality of this article is disputed yet you allowed the tag that says "the neutrality of this article is disputed" to be removed uncontested. You seem to be acknowledging that removing the tag wasn't "right" yet you looked the other way and allowed it to happen. You attitude seems to be "Lou isn't submissive enough, so screw the reader - let's retaliate by mangling the article".
You know very well that the neutrality of this article is disputed, and is even being rewritten! The purpose of that tag is to let the reader know it too. For you to allow that information to be withheld is a disservice to the reader. Lou franklin 10:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm trying to serve the interests of the Wikipedia community as a whole. I don't have a strong view either way on the tag. Technically the article is disputed, but really it's mostly disputed just by you, and we typically work according to the spirit of the guidelines, not the letter, around here. I haven't read the article itself all the way through in a long enough time to feel comfortable making a judgment on whether the article as a whole is sufficiently POV to actually deserve a tag.
"Submissive" is the wrong word, and your choice of that word is why I agree with Seth that you need to edit some other articles and get a better sense of how Wikipedia works. You can be politely aggressive without being bombastic (which is how you frequently come off). There's a difference between yelling at everyone and presenting conspiracy theories about a group conspiring to manage an article -- acts which will definitely alienate other editors -- and presenting your arguments forcefully, politely, and still assuming good faith in other editors, and then seeing if you can work out a community consensus regarding the problems that you see. You can discuss the exact same problems in one way or the other, but people are going to be a lot more willing to work with you, respect you, and consider your arguments if they also feel that you respect them and are willing to work with them instead of trying to bully or steamroll them. I don't know what you do in real life, but surely you've had to work with groups of other people at some point. What would be more useful in that situation, according to your experiences: coming in complaining loudly that everyone had done the wrong thing and had better hurry up and do it your way, yelling at them rather than sitting down and addressing their concerns, countering their serious questions with tangential questions of your own rather than trying to answer them; or calmly sitting down and saying, "I think you've made these mistakes, what do you think?" and trying to figure out a compromise that everyone can live with? This is the same kind of situation. We're working as a group and trying to create a quality product. The fact that we can't communicate face to face doesn't change that.
That is what magicians call "misdirection". The magician diverts the audience's attention by getting them to look in the wrong place. The problem is not that the article is biased; the problem is that Lou needs to edit some other articles. Don't look there, look here!
You said "Technically the article is disputed, but really it's mostly disputed just by you, and we typically work according to the spirit of the guidelines, not the letter, around here."
Why is that? If you "work according to the spirit of the guidelines, not the letter" doesn't that mean that you are interpreting what the spirit of the guidelines was? Don't you think you should abide by Wikipedia's policies as they are written instead of as you wish they were written?
The tag says "the neutrality of this article is disputed". You just agreed that "the article is disputed". So what is the confusion? How can you possibly have a clear conscience about allowing that tag to be removed when you know that in fact the article is disputed?
When you say "it's mostly disputed just by you" are you saying that it requires multiple editors in order for the neutrality of the article to be disputed? Do you think that the tag says "the neutrality of this article is disputed BY MULTIPLE EDITORS"?
And what is "mostly" supposed to mean? Didn't you see on the discussion page where Ntennis made the same point about the introduction that I made? Didn't you just read Seth's comment about how they are working on "creating a useful and informative and NPOV" version of the article? Why do you suppose that is necessary?
I can't make you do the right thing. Either "the neutrality of this article is disputed" or it is not. I think you know which. Lou franklin 03:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
tag. The POV tag says that "the neutrality of this article is disputed", and that is clearly correct. Removing a tag that says "the neutrality of this article is disputed" when you know very well that the neutrality of this article is disputed is not working in good faith.
Wikipedia has the POV tag for a reason. You are supposed to remove the POV tag by working to remove the source of the dispute. Blocking anyone who disagrees with you so that you can remove the POV tag is not how it is supposed to work. Lou franklin 11:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
The POV tag is text, and subject to 3RR like anything else, as far as I'm concerned William M. Connolley 11:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is obviously not "text like anything else". The tag says "the neutrality of this article is disputed". Do you honestly think Wikipedia intended editors to remove the tag even though the the neutrality of this article is disputed?
Every time the POV tag is used there is some editor who disagrees and would like to remove it. That is what the word "dispute" means!
Unblock me immediately. Lou franklin 14:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Blocked again, guess where. What is "gaming the system" indeed - its where you just avoid a technical violation but still get blocked for breaking the spirit of the law William M. Connolley 13:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ah, the spirit of the law. Very impartial. Lou franklin 02:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Lou, for your future reference, the Arbitration Committee has held that the repeated reinsertion of a neutrality or dispute tag by a single editor in the face of significant opposition from a substantial number of other editors is something to be avoided. The concern is that a single editor would otherwise be able to hold an article 'hostage' by repeatedly adding a tag, no matter how much opposition he faced.
I'm sure that for many of our articles, we could locate an individual who was unhappy with our portrayal of certain issues and information. While this means that technically all of our articles are 'disputed', in practice we accept that when a very large majority agree that an article is accurate and balanced, we remove the tags. To do otherwise would render the tags both meaningless and useless.
Put the tags down unless you have some indication that there is a minority larger than one or two editors that are concerned by neutrality issues in the article. Discuss calmly with other editors, and see how much more productive that can be. Consider taking a short break from the article so you can come back to it with fresh perspective. Note that edit warring for an extended period is a good way to receive an enforced vacation from editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute says that a POV tag "means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards". If that policy has changed, please provide a link to the new policy. Lou franklin 02:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's not a policy. It's not even a guideline. It doesn't let you flout 3RR, which is a policy. Even if it was policy, the bit you quoted doesn't say "only the editor who added the tag may remove the tag". --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
It says that a POV tag "means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards". I assure you that I wouldn't have added the tag if I thought the article conformed to NPOV standards. The issue is "the opinion of the person who added this link". Reading is fundamental. Unless you understand my opinions better than I do, play by the rules and do not remove the tag.
I can't stop people from blocking for 3rr violations when there are none, or removing the POV tag when they have no right to do so. But if you were really interested in working in good faith on an impartial article you would abide by Wikipedia's policies.
If the POV policy has changed, please provide a link to the new policy and I will abide by it. Until then a POV tag "means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards". Lou franklin 14:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are missing the point, and your pain will continue until you see the point. The NPOV tag means exactly what you say it says: that in the opinion of the person who added it, there is a problem. What you have failed to quote is anything against *removing* the tag William M. Connolley 18:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are really answering your own question. The POV tag "means that in the opinion of the person who added this link the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards". Until that is no longer true, the tag remains and the reader can look through the talk page and make his own decision. Once the article in question does conform to NPOV standards, then the tag is removed... but not before.
Obviously the person who added the link must agree to the tag's removal. Other editors cannot speculate that the person who added the POV tag has changed his opinion. You are supposed to work to remove the POV and then remove the tag. Lou franklin 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Its too late now, I guess, but someone pointing this out might help you in the future: Coming into a talk page, especially on a heated topic, and announcing that the article/category is silly is just going to offend people. Agree with the topic or not, people have put work into this stuff, and calling it silly is just being insulting. You're perfectly entitled to believe that whatever you like is silly, and you're perfectly within your rights to say it, but all the same, announcing that belief is sometimes just uncivil. On Wikipedia, the name of the game is building consensus, and you're not likely to get any of that if you're just throwing around insults. -Seth Mahoney 02:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. I toned it down. Lou franklin 11:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Lou, you know full well that it is disingenious to make a change to an article claiming that said change is in accord with a compromise on the talk page, when you are the only one to have agreed to said compromise on the talk page. Next time, you would do better to build consensus before you make controversial changes, rather than after. This is not only a matter of being considerate, but also has pragmatic elements, too: Now, noone on the talk page is likely to listen to you, because you've yet again distinguished yourself as "that editor that acts outside of consensus". Your complaints look even more like just so much hot air. Had you tried to build consensus before, rather than after, making the edits, you wouldn't have that mark against you. -Seth Mahoney 17:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'll tell you what is disingenuous: Ignoring the consensus of billions of people because a dozen gay guys think their opinion is more important.
What is disingenuous is saying "had you tried to build consensus before..." when you know very well that I did.
What is disingenuous is saying that these are "controversial changes" when you know that the large majority of the world agrees with them.
What is disingenuous is claiming that the addition of ' is too drastic and cannot be compromised on.
What is disingenuous is organizing a dozen gay people to make sure that reasonable edits like these never make consensus.
I made that edit because I want to remove the POV tag. Of all of the preposterous things that the article says, I have looked the other way on all but the four most ludicrous. For editors who are working in good faith, it shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to work through those four issues. My last edit could not have been more benign.
We identified only four showstoppers that need to be worked through:
1) Balance the introduction
2) Reword "LGBT 'civil rights' movement"
3) Remove or reword "same-sex 'marriage'"
4) Remove unnecessary obscenities
It should take very little time to work this out. We have already hammered out our differences on "LGBT 'civil rights' movement". You mentioned that the first item is already in the works, so we are almost done here. Let's wrap this up and get on with our lives, shall we? I don't want to have to bring in the cavalry here, but if push comes to shove I will. If adding ' is too much to ask to indicate that billions of people object to the term "same-sex marriage", what compromise do you suggest? Lou franklin 02:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Yes, I hammered lightdarkness with 12 questions at once, he's doing his best to answer em but its a LOT of questions :) -- Tawker 02:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion.
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. KimvdLinde 03:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
The POV tag is not a matter of consensus. That has been discussed at length on the talk page. Please refrain from vandalising the article. Lou franklin 03:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
By continuing to make edits such as [18] you are inhibiting the community's ability to come to a consensus. If you oppose a proposed change, then say so. Do not remove what others have said on a talk page. Thanks -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns) 03:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Regardless of whether you agree with the comments people make or not, everyone has the right to express their opinion on a talk page without being censored by other editors. Please stop. Hbackman 03:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
You do not have the right to vote on the removal of the POV tag. The tag says "The neutrality of this article is disputed". It is disputed no matter how this "vote" turns out. Lou franklin 03:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
But you do not have the right to remove other users' comments, no matter how much you may disagree with them. Hbackman 03:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
What is the root cause? How could I have removed an improper "vote" if it hadn't occurred? Lou franklin 03:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Does anybody care about neutrality - even a little?
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
On the off-chance that there is anybody left here who has any interest whatsoever in integrity and having a neutral article, let's talk about Cleduc's comment on the talk page:
Only one editor (Lou franklin) wants this tag
Cleduc knows that this is not so, as this was discussed at length. Other editors have added the tag and he knows it.
which he now bases solely on scare quotes around the term "same-sex marriage"
Cleduc knows that this is not so, as this was also discussed at length (including about 10 lines above). There are four actions that need to be taken in order to make the article even close to NPOV:
1) Balance the introduction
2) Reword "LGBT 'civil rights' movement"
3) Remove or reword "same-sex 'marriage'"
4) Remove unnecessary obscenities
Number 2 has been resolved. Numbers 1, 3, and 4 are still outstanding, as he very well knows.
He has been unable to convince any other editors that this change is necessary.
Cleduc knows that this is not so, and has witnessed other editors adding the POV tag.
If deception were an Olympic sport, I know a groups of gay guys who would be walking around with gold medals right now. Lou franklin 04:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Regarding that last paragraph, Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. .
Regarding the rest of it, we've tried to interact with you reasonably, and you were doing really well for a while -- I had real hope that you would become a productive contributor -- but it seems that you still don't understand the concepts of compromise and of the existence other valid points of view.
Answer what you want -- I'm not going to argue along these lines, at least, any more; I'm giving up on trying to change your mind.
How is flatly refusing to change "same-sex marriage" to "same-sex 'marriage'" when millions of people object to the term an example of "the concepts of compromise"? Lou franklin 04:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Somehow, due to a bug I assume, my shortening of your block didn't take effect (although it was listed in the Special:Log. I've now fixed it. Sorry about that. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, but it didn't work. Got any other ideas? Lou franklin 00:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
In response to the PM you sent me, it appears someone else has already attempted to unblock you after JesseW. See if it works now. 23skidoo 02:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I was just unblocked. Thanks anyway. Lou franklin 02:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
