Hi, and welcome to my user talk page! I really like hearing from other editors, so feel free to add your comments. I also welcome criticism, but please do your best to remain polite and try hard to assume good faith, just as you would if we were talking face to face. Comments that ignore these fundamental community standards, or comments from editors who've shown a pattern of ignoring them in the past may be deleted without reply. Also, if I left you a message on your talk page, please answer on your talk page. If you leave me a message here, I'll answer here on my talk page. This keeps a discussion in one place, so much easier to follow. Thanks! Ohiostandard ( talk) 23:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Bkpsusmitaa ( talk) 07:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your kind words at the review! I appreciate them more than I can adequately express -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You're most welcome. Thanks again for your dedication to improving the encyclopedia. Ohiostandard ( talk) 18:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the message. Happy to help out - I cannot remember how that one ended up on my watchlist, but now that it's there it might as well stay. Nice work with the notability discussion on the talk page, very well reasoned and exactly on point. I wish there were more editors round here who took the time to do such research and explain it so well! And thanks for the offer of nominating me for an Rfa - you are not the first to ask, and I think I will probably get round to it a little later this year. The problem is dedicating the appropriate amount of time to the process, and at the moment things IRL are a little hectic! –  ukexpat ( talk) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You're welcome, and thanks for your kind words. I do understand "a little hectic!" I'm nothing like so prolific as you are here, and I receive only sporadic requests for assistance from new users. But I often hear the siren call, e.g. "I'll just look into this one small thing," only to look up a few hours later and realize I've spent more time than I'd intended. But it does seem to me that BLPs merit special care, and it's certainly a pleasant way to beguile a few hours, besides. Thanks again, Ohiostandard ( talk) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comprehensive analysis on the sentence "I didn't disagree with you." It helps me a lot. I am curious to know whether you are a mathematian:) Best.-- 刻意(Kèyì) 22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

You are most welcome. I enjoyed the process very much, so thank you for the opportunity, and for your kind words, also. Because I like to keep a discussion on just one page, though, I have copied what you wrote, above, to your talk page. I have also replied further, there. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 22:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I've been helping at the help desk for going on five years, and I think your response to my post was one of the nicest I've ever seen.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 06:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

So I guess this means my dairy products will be okay for awhile? ;-) Thank you for taking time to post to my talk page, in addition to providing so clear and concise an explanation at the help desk. I appreciate the courtesy. I'm surprised to hear that my words of appreciation were at all unusual there. Perhaps new users assume that help desk volunteers are paid Wikipedia employees? Whatever the reason, it always surprises me to find that many users fail to recognize and acknowledge how much dedication and work from others their own ability to contribute actually rests on. Best regards,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 09:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm glad to help. SharedIP templates are easy to add if you install the "Friendly" gadget. I love Twinkle, Friendly and refTools, they really make life here a lot easier. Burpelson AFB ( talk) 03:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I see you stopped my confirmed status due to my actions, but the problems on the other case has been solved so what of my rights??? ( BlackImperial ( talk) 03:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)) reply

Oh, sorry about that. ( Explosion of lightning and deafening clap of thunder, here. ) You're now confirmed. Is that better? ;-)  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 03:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

You might also like to read Fastily's comment about your request on WP:Requests for permissions, the part where he says, "You are autoconfirmed." If you don't know what that means, enter the text wp:autoconfirmed into the search box you'd use to search for an article. The "wp" prefix tells the search function to search not in mainspace, where all our articles are stored, but to search in the space where all the rules and resources and policies and pages meant for editors are stored. Try it with other words or terms you don't understand, too, e.g. try wp:indent, or wp:agf, or wp:watchlist, or wp:reliable, and see what happens. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 03:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

This site is probably the best out there. Dismas| ^(talk) 10:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Wow, what a great resource! I've been looking for something like this for a good long while. Very generous of you to follow up with this; thanks so much. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 10:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

My pleasure. Enjoy! Dismas| ^(talk) 10:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

You know, just for my own reference, because I like one of its "quick-lookup" pages, I'm going to remind myself about this site, here too, and link to the help desk thread in which Dismas answered a question I'd posted that ended up being about an html tag, as well. Thanks again, Dismas; I sincerely appreciate your generosity, both here and at the help desk. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 13:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

can I order the CliffNotes version please? :P Ncmvocalist ( talk) 14:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah, sorry. I know it's bad form to be so verbose. But that was the CliffNotes version. :P  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 15:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your comments at ANI, well said and good on you for keeping the larger picture in view. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 23:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Seconded. Well said, and well done. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Thoroughly well grounded comments, and they cheered me no end. Your humanity and sensitivity are inspiring. Best. Haploidavey ( talk) 12:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Will you look at that! You stay away a few days, and just look at the kinds of things people say behind your back! ;-) Nuujinn, Tony Fox, Haploidavey, and ClovisPt, Jimmy, and TheDJ from ANI, too: I'm very grateful for your generous comments, grateful, and humbled by them, too. Best thanks, all.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 03:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi OhioStandard! I was too slow. ;-) Just wanted to revert according to WP:ELNO #13, but #5 fits as well. Alfie ↑↓ © 13:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Alfie! It's good to hear from you, thanks! I've been avoiding the work of revising the MedCan article, as you know. I keep thinking about it, especially about categorizing claimed benefits according to how well-supported they are (or aren't!) by the science. My life has been very hectic the past many months, but things should settle down in December and subsequently; time for some real work, soon, I think, including revisiting the information you so generously provided in the thread that began as a discussion about the affect of cannabis on hippocampal acetylcholine. Of course, if I delay attending to the article much longer there might not be anything left; I see SandyGeorgia has been busily deleting cites after her earlier wholesale "medrs" tagging. I think a better approach would be to use those refs to place a particular claim in the appropriate category, myself. ( End of rant ;-)

I hope you're well; I miss our exchanges, if you'll excuse me for speaking so personally. I'm afraid I was a disappointing interlocutor since I didn't allocate time to learn enough about our topic, didn't undertake any degree of study commensurate with the richness and complexity of our discussion. As some very small compensation, for now, this thread may amuse or interest you. I presented quite a jumble of pseudoscientific conjecture in my final post, sheer speculation, and not very carefully done at all, but such things interest me greatly. I think we're all much more influenced by the hunter-gatherer phase of our species' development than is generally recognized. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 14:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi OhioStandard! I'm still watching the MedCan article, but must confess that I just try to revert plain vandalism. Since a while I'm using WP:Huggle to work on RC. You wouldn't believe the amount of nonsense showing up (roughly one IP edit every two seconds). I miss our exchanges as well – have been the best I had in WP by far! THX for your personal report; was quite amusing. From my personal experience I would support your speculations. Your friend should start with Beethoven's symphonies and continue with Gustav Mahler's – a lot of parallel levels to discover. ;-) Alfie ↑↓ © 17:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey, OhioStandard, I did not see a button to push to leave a new message, so I hope this is okay. I wanted to thank you for not assuming I was girl, because of my user page. I think, maybe if you had a more sterotypical mind, you might assume I was a dude, so thanks for being openminded. That shows tolerance, and I think that is tres cool. Which means very cool in French. :) (Alos, I apologize if I messed up this "mail" section. AdbMonkey ( talk) 19:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Mais bien sur! Tres domestique! Which means, more or less, "What a pleasant message!" Thanks, and no worries re the formatting; I should probably add a "send me a message" button. Somwhere on the page when you're viewing a talk page you should find a "new section" button or tab that's "clickable", that'd be the one you want. ( I can't tell you exactly where to look, because I'm using a non-standard user interface, and I've forgotten now, what the default one looks like. ) Alternatively, you can always click "edit" on the final message on the page, as I presume you did, here, and then begin your section with == New message == or whatever section title you want for your addition. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 05:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		For your impeccable analysis at ANI of another editors actions and probable motives. I think it puts the actions in perspective nicely The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 22:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you, RA; I appreciate this, very much. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 02:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your very considerate response OhioStandard. Wikipedia needs more such admins like you. Good Luck and God Bless. Boolyme ^Talk!! 08:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply

You're welcome; I appreciate your words very much. I should clarify, though, that I'm not an administrator. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 11:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I am constantly impressed by the scholarly nature of your arguments. Here's to you! NickCT ( talk) 20:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks! This means a lot to me, given the respect I have for your own contributions. I've watched your very patient efforts to reach consensus on the talk pages for multiple controversial articles for some months now, always based on the soundest analysis and respectful consideration for all contributors' opinions. I've especially admired the many instances where you've provided alternative wordings for hotly-disputed passages, always composed in scrupulous fairness and in excellent, admirably concise prose, without favoring your own position, and then provided a structure for editors to !vote among those alternatives. You've consistently resolved complex disputes that way, and allowed the article and contributing editors to move forward productively. I'm very grateful for that, as I am for your commendation. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 22:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

...it's a possible explanation for the alleged discrepancy which will very naturally occur to many. AnonMoos ( talk) 18:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I do like it, actually, in the sense that I'm glad you called my attention to the problem. I meant to leave you a note to say "thanks" and explain my BLP revert, but the phone rang and I got distracted. Sorry if it seemed like there was any malice in that; there wasn't. Also, you'll see I posted a "do not mis-infer skullduggery here" kind of note at the article talk page, Cheers,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 00:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		The article hasn't been changed since your last edit. Thanks -- 06:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 69.22.179.83 ( talk)

Thank you so much!! You are our hero. Finally, the facts are as they are. That's what was the argument about. Thank you for stepping in and help Wikipedia as neutral as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.179.87 ( talk) 00:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for encouraging me to stick to my promises in my work on Wikipedia.   Novus  Orator  05:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I think I recall writing somewhere that despite our wide differences of opinion, I had no doubt that you'd be excellent company in real life. Your response here just confirms me in that view. I think it must be the most gracious reply I've ever received from someone I've had conflict with, and I honor you for it; thank you. If you ever want to redecorate your talk page, feel free to change the "wallpaper" of my recent contribution whenever the mood strikes, or right away, for that matter, if you like. I'd thought about trying to include one of the four or five thumbnail videos from from this page, but I wasn't sure that they'd all work for you since ( I think? ) some of them may require the presence of a browser plug-in to play .ogg files, for example. Anyway, I meant what I said in my post to your page. Your contribution to Reaction Engines Skylon has been outstanding, and I hope you feel really, really proud about that. You should. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 09:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this. I'm sure it violated at least three guidelines (and possibly was illogical), but it was worth it. Sometimes this place is way too stuffy. Rivertorch ( talk) 05:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC) reply

You're probably right about the policy violations. I half-expected to have been hauled off to ANI by now by some grumpy editor shouting, "Help! Help! BLP! BLP!". But more substantively, it's not just her ears. The New York Post snapped pics of her going into a druggist's shop to buy a bottle of this, and photographed her coming out of her building with this in her arms. I'd say a certain editor has a lot of explaining to do... Glad you appreciated my post; thanks for saying so! Cheers,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 11:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC) reply

OMG I AM HAULING YOU TO AN/I RIGHT NOW PREPARE TO BE BANNED, SUCKA

p.s. lol jk :P l'aquatique [talk] 18:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I look forward to it extremely, l'aquatique! Thanks for your comment; it makes me glad to know that my admittedly warped sense of humor finds at least some kindred folk throughout the world. Lord knows it finds little-enough appreciation at home! "A prophet in his own country", and all that, I suppose. ;-) I wonder, though: Are we obliged to inform Sarek of this thread? Cheers,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 18:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Lacking emotion, I am sure he would not appreciate its nuances! Anyway, my intention was mostly to remind you that even though there are a lot of people who take themselves way too seriously, I'd have something to say to someone who really thought it'd be appropriate to make a fuss about a little joke. I can block you if you really want me to, though. l'aquatique [talk] 18:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm sure you're right, re Sarek, and I appreciate the reminder and the support, too, very much. I never really grooved to the whole S&M thing, though, so I think I'll have to pass on the block. But it was really nice of you to offer! Thanks!  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 18:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply

		The Help Award
		In tremendous appreciation for your helpfulness on my talk page, in working on User:Tomaca's question. I am very grateful for your kindness to her and to me. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply

So, I'm on my way back from a somewhat stressful (and expensive! :P) vet visit thinking about her and what I might say or do to help out (I have asked for eyes of a few people at Google chat, but nobody has had time and I haven't wanted to ask at COI, which sometimes seems to predispose people to negativity), and I get in to find you courteously and informatively addressing her. Truly, that's fabulous. Thanks so much for helping out. :) I'll reply at my talk page, too, but your assistance was so heartening to me that I just had to come over here and say so, in pictoral fashion. :D -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply

(P.S. I'd avoid looking at this lady too closely, because she's a bit scary. :/ -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)) reply

Wow, thanks for this! There's not an editor on Wikipedia whose approbation I could value more than I do yours; I'm very grateful. And you're welcome, of course, for the offer to try to help the user. I'm actually very greatly impressed that you were willing to do so yourself when you already have so very much on your plate related to copyright matters.

May I also just say that I hope your pet will be alright? I don't have one myself right now ( although my girlfriend's cat clearly regards my lap as her own private furniture ) but I've been nearly as attached to some pets as I have to people, and I know how it feels when one is unwell.

You really shouldn't have told me that the nurse was scary, though. Of course that just prompted me to view the image at full 3,582 × 4,797 resolution. She's either an evil zombie vampire nurse, or she just had her brains sucked out by a ghoul. If it's not one or the other, then I suppose the only other explanation is that she spent too much time trying to improve articles on climate change or politics. Thanks again for this thoughtful notice, very much. Best regards,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 16:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for catching my slip-up at Richard A. Falk and sorry for briefly messing up the lead. I guess the lesson is not to edit articles while watching basketball games on TV.— Biosketch ( talk) 20:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply

No worries at all, but good of you to say so; thanks. I'd bet that a very high percentage of us multitask for one-off edits of that sort. Cheers,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The 70's era Norton Commando can be dialed in to fit someone 6'8" and the Ducati sport-classics can be fitted out with "rear sets" and taller shocks to accommodate a taller rider. (I asked around this week) I still think the BMW is the best bet. Cheers- V7-sport ( talk) 03:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I take your suggestions very kindly, V7 thank you! I'll certainly investigate these possibilities. I have yet to sit on the BMW, but I'm pretty favorably disposed in its direction, too. Thanks very much for passing along this additional information; I appreciate your generosity in doing so very much indeed. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 09:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the nice note. It is no problem to discuss such cases. I find RSN an good discussion forum in order to get my own brain around cases like this, which inevitably come up for all editors.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Adding my thanks for your kind note on my Talk page. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

My pleasure: I appreciate the work you've both done at RSN, very much. It takes patience with POV-driven editors, and a willingness to really sift through a considerable volume of material to contribute well there, and you both do that admirably. I'm grateful for that; thanks again! Cheers,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 12:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, long time no talk. I saw your ANI report regarding Rklawton et al. and I thought you might be interested in a pattern I noticed. You have a tendency to write extremely long comments on ANI which works against you. In the future, you may want to simply start with a very brief executive summary linked to a longer report in your user space. Combine this with using user talk pages to respond to points in depth and you will find yourself making more efficient use of the noticeboards. I say this because I personally think you make good points and helpful comments, but they are getting lost in your verbose explication. As an expositor, you may benefit by changing your approach depending on your target audience. Viriditas ( talk) 02:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, Viriditas; yes, too long: I'm glad to hear from you. You're perfectly right, of course, both about the audience and about the length. I can write a pretty fair 3,000 word essay in a few hours, but cutting that down to 800 or so takes me many times as long. I was supposed to be pretty ADD when I was a kid; so maybe there are just too many salient ideas competing for attention in the old noggin. ;-) Anyway, I think I'm done for a while, although I'll probably post a closing comment to the AN/I thread. Thanks very much for your thoughts, and glad we sorted that whole debacle from earlier on, too. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 04:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Fuhgeddaboudit. So how is medical cannabis looking these days? I think the layout and sourcing in the "Clinical applications" and "National and international regulations" sections needs work. I also think the regulations section takes up way too much room and should be condensed down into several paragraphs and split out. Viriditas ( talk) 10:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Wow, I can't believe I didn't reply to this previously. Too distracted with the more-or-less obligatory replies at AN/I and WQA ( the first now archived, praise be ) - a huge waste of time, I felt, but necessary. Sorry to have been so slow, because I especially meant to thank you for what I guessed to have been your motive with your very timely and welcome kinda-invite, above. I really appreciate that; thank you. Re the literal questions themselves, that article has been a pebble in my shoe for a long while. Not that I consider it any sort of definitive consensus, but Alfie and I had previously agreed to use the sort of Hierarchy of Therapeutic Effects ranking scheme presented by Grotenhermen & Russo in 2002, to deal with the "Clinical applications" section.

Introducing such a structure into the article, and populating it according to consensus would take a lot of work, though, which is probably why it hasn't been done yet. I agree entirely with splitting out regulations to a separate article. I'm behind in the commitments I've already made here, though, so I'm going to have let that particular pebble stay in place for a while longer. Sorry, though; I think if we could all find the time that you, Alfie, and I could probably put it into decent order. You might get a kick out of looking at Alfie trying to tutor me in his area of expertise, btw. My initial goal had been to be able to determine when a research study has used a reasonable versus an unreasonable "dose" or "stimulus amount" of cannabinoids to obtain the dependent–variable results it reports. A much harder problem than it sounds, but a very pleasantly educational one, too.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 09:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

It is rare when I am able to edit on wikipedia, but I just recently saw your thank you note on my talk page. Occasionally, I find the opportunity to share my knowledge of incredibly obscure subjects and I am glad I was able to be of some help to you. I had recently researched this issue for a court case where the question was whether a state agency action had constituted an adjudication for due process purposes. Coincidentally, your question was posted when this issue was fresh in my mind. Now if only remarkable coincidences would occur with a close family member picking a lottery number. Gx872op ( talk) 16:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

It was kind of you to share the benefit of your research with me. You certainly have all my best wishes for so happy a coincidence with the lottery, as well: "Give and it shall be given unto you", as I hope. Thanks again,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 01:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

There's an odd half-sentence after your signature here. What's up with that? tedder ( talk) 11:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

That was actually part of Fintor's post at 10:30 4 May 2011 (UTC); he was quoting from my previous post, to indicate what part of that he was responding to, except he didn't use quotation marks, and did use a kind of unusual indentation. I can't imagine he'd object if you wanted to refactor, place quote marks, change indenting, preface it with "You wrote ...", or whatever. I'd approve of that, myself. I understood his intent, because I recognized the fragment as my own words, having written them, but I doubt others are quite so enamored of my writing that they'd "get it".  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 12:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Are we talking about the same part? I'm talking about the text that is "accept anything remotely this advert/promotional that's cited to". I don't see that it existed before your edit. tedder ( talk) 14:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

"How galling it is to discover that something one was sure was the other fellow's error was, in fact, one's own." — Nicolas Bourbaki

Thanks for your persistence in bringing this to my attention. My own editing artifact, after all; you were quite right. Corrected now. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 14:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Heh! At least I didn't invoke Muphry's Law in the process. tedder ( talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Given my thick-headedness throughout ( double-entendre intended re 'throughout' ) I think doing so would have been my roll... And if you took my roll, that would be as bad as stealing someone's bread, man. ;-) Cheers,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 14:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Everyone says, correct me if I'm wrong. Not many really mean it. Everyone wants apologies. But you don't see many. A lot of the fun of WP is the stimulating debate. Sometimes not so much. It's good to be able to laugh and move on. I tilt at windmills, too. Cheers, Msnicki ( talk) 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

(a) Um, thanks for sharing?

(b) What?

(c) Are you worried WMF is running out of storage bytes and we're hastening the crisis?

(d) What?

Pick any three.  –  OhioStandard ( talk)

Apologies. I'm trying very hard to drop a stick but couldn't resist smiling that you're having the same communication problem I had. I expected you'd connect this up with your remarks here. I should have given you the link. Msnicki ( talk) 15:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh, sorry. Missed the user name, and hadn't refreshed my watchlist recently-enough to notice the reply. I thought you were referring to the immediately-preceding thread on this page. Yup, what you said. Damn windmills! Cheers,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 15:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I enjoy your writing. Use your imagination of how we might laugh over a beer under different circumstances. Msnicki ( talk) 16:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Wow. That was a great! Thanks for the suggestion!  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 16:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I've never met anyone like you before. I mean, I've met girls who snort once or twice when they laugh, but not that loudly, and for minutes on end. It was really endearing, although I'm sorry the beer went up your nose. Don't worry about the photographs, though: It's just a small, local paper, and no one will recognize you with the tablecloth over your head, when we go back for the grapes. I doubt the nickname will even stick. And besides, if we'd stayed we'd never have found the Don Esteban in time for the priest, or met Pablo, either, and then where would the village have been?  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 01:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm usually more of an acquired taste. Msnicki ( talk) 04:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Whatever you say, o Efalante.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 04:47 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have me there. I suppose I might be confused with a Heffalump, but more frequently with an unmade bed. What's funny is when someone gets a joke only enough to think it's funny, not enough to know what it's about. Msnicki ( talk) 05:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Wait a minute; I'm glad I have you there, but were you asking me to share the details with you? How I can possibly tell a pleasant but essentially unknown woman about so highly personal a memory, and one that I, at least, will always cherish? Don't misunderstand: I couldn't be more grateful to you for agreeing to the trip in the first place and making the whole adventure possible − especially after the debacle in New York it was really generous of you. But you're asking a very great deal, you know.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 04:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

( Note to self: Maybe don't make next girl who wants share fictional beer into fictional snorting Heffalump. 20:38, 10 May 2011 UTC )

Hi. When you have second, can you comment on this issue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_A._Falk#Lead_section I'm trying to determine if there is consensus for that lead or not. Thanks. BernieW650 ( talk) 21:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

( Late-edit note: The following comes after my notification to AGK of the initial comment I made in a thread ( link and snapshot ) on EdJohnston's talk page. − Ohiostandard )

As a preliminary reply, know that I have limited wiki-time at the moment (something has come up at short notice IRL), and I might not be able to respond to your message on my talk page for a short time. But I have read, and am aware of, your points, and will respond fully as soon as I can. I was surprised by your suggestion that I am prejudiced in some way (you didn't really say how), especially because I am probably as impartial with regards to Israel/Palestine as one can be. I reside in Scotland, where there is a negligible Arab and Jewish population, and where Israel-Palestine is really not a contentious issue, and am from an Irish family. I've never edited the topic area on Wikipedia, or been involved in it IRL, or even had any significant involvement with the editors in question. It is a perpetual problem at AE that, because the board is staffed by a very small pool of administrators (it's a stressful and thankless task), eventually one sysop racks up several closes of enforcement requests for one topic area.

It is easy to look at the most recent closures of an administrator, and conclude that he must be biased towards those editors because the sum of the closures are against users of one faction. In reality, I closed each case 'in a vacuum'; I wasn't targeting one side, and I am disappointed that you seem to claim that I have. I will respond in full soon, but really I don't know what else to add. Regards, AGK [ • 21:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Perhaps I should have been more general in my statements. I genuinely loathe having to raise such questions, but I'm afraid I haven't seen you object with anything like equal vigor to the very provocative actions of editors on the opposite side of the divide in Mideast politics.

Just to cite a couple of concise and easy-to-relate examples, in the AE about "Israel/Palesting articles generally" that you convened recently, you expressed no objection when an editor was shown to have referred to the members of the opposing side as "psychotic haters", and then had refused to apologize while at the same time claiming he did so, which he absolutely did not. And it likewise seems to me that you've been extraordinarily permissive (to put it as mildly as I can) with a recent highly-partisan and extremely controversial forum shopping editor on the side opposed to SD's usual editing pattern, and whom you appear to have taken under your wing. ( You do know that you were the fourth or fifth admin that editor has sought out and developed something of an ostensibly submissive and rather flattering on-wiki relationship with in the past two months, I hope? ) I did see where you lost patience with her at one point, although you're back on congenial terms, but she did feel confident-enough in your relationship that she felt free to continue her by no means new cutesy little habit of repeatedly referring to her perceived opponents as "trolls users" and speaking of their "lies false accusations" about her.

To be frank, I doubt any other admin who works trying to herd cats in the I/P area would stand for that for a second. Did you not notice that those strikethroughs were in her original posts, rather than having been made after the fact? And even if you didn't why would you think a strikethrough as opposed to a redaction/replacement would be acceptable? There are admins who would have blocked her for that, and almost all of them would have at least given her a stern warning to stop doing that. I'm afraid seeing your apparent lack of concern over these very intentional provocations rather dented my belief in your impartiality in the I/P area, along with other actions on your part that I won't take time to mention now.

These are fairly small concerns in the grand scheme of things, but they do seem to me to represent very unequal treatment relative to the pretty extreme harshness by which you've been dealing with pro-Palestinian editors recently. But I understand and fully respect that your time is limited right now, and I'm entirely willing to suspend the discussion of these and related examples until you're able to participate fully. Again, I'm very genuinely sorry to feel obliged to raise such concerns, and I'd be delighted to learn that my impressions are mistaken.

I do think it's normally the case, though, that the great majority of men and women of good will are understandably prejudiced, entirely without knowing they are, in favor of the Israeli side of the interminable Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Westerners simply don't get one-twentieth of the exposure to facts that are favorable to the Palestinian side of the conflict as they do to news that's favorable to Israel: The people of Gaza, for example, simply have nothing like Israel's ability to generate news: They own no international newspapers, there's no resident foreign press corps; reporter's access in and out of Gaza is severely restricted by the Israeli blockade, and reporters who do manage to get in, besides native reporters, are reportedly subject to special and harrassing attention by Israeli security forces in times of conflict. Even the equipment and materials needed to produce video records of what happens there can't cross Israeli checkpoints.

The other day, for example, I was surprised to read for the first time that the Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel that we've all heard such a storm of publicity about over the years had actually killed very few people. As I recall the details of the (?) 2008 story in the Guardian, just 14 people in total had been killed over the years by rocket attacks. The rockets, it seems, can't really be aimed. They're like Fourth-of-July bottle rockets, very primitive. The Israeli military is state of the art, however, and has killed hundreds (thousands?) in response to such attacks, most of them innocent civilians who were just trying to go about their day, including children, when their world exploded around them.

And when more intense and sustained conflicts or wars do flare up in conflicts between Israel and surrounding nations/peoples, there are almost always at least 10 or 20 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. Anyway, this is a discussion for another time, since you can't participate now. But I did feel I owed you some interim explanation for what I of course understand would be distressing comments on my part. If the discussion continues in your absence, I'll try to make it clear that everyone should try to suspend judgment, pending your response, since you can't participate now...

You know what? In the meantime, until you can further address your concerns on-wiki, I'm going to go ahead and send you the text of an e-mail that I sent to a friend recently when she asked, in all innocence and good will, "How can you support the Palestinians? They're terrorists!" It contains nothing about any editor, of course, but it will certainly give you occasion to see some things that you'll simply never be exposed to in the media I expect you normally have access to. If you're at all concerned that such a communication would be improper in any way, feel free to post its content to your talk, perhaps in collapsed format, to save space. I wouldn't object in the least.

Excuse the novel, here, but I did think you deserved a substantial reply to your concerns. Again, please understand that I haven't the least personal motivation or ill-feeling in saying any of the things I've felt it necessary to say, and that I take absolutely no pleasure in saying them. Best regards  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 23:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your response, but you have missed the mark entirely. My problem is not that I am biased in favour of Israel because of my own naivety about what's actually happening at Gaza etc. I'm not biased at all. I don't support any one faction, and I am completely uninvolved in this topic area. I have no opinion on the topic matter, I don't favour any of the involved editors over the others, and in fact I mostly don't even stop to consider what "faction" an editor is when an enforcement request is filed. I was probably being dense at the time, but I didn't even stop to think that both SD and Nableezy were pro-Israel editors, and that I would accordingly have sanctioned two in a fortnight. That is probably the evidence that best refutes the suggestion by you and Jd2718 that I am not impartial. I also hadn't realised previously, but it was pointed out to me that I recently also sanctioned User:Cptnono, a pro-Israel editor. So which side am I biased against? Is it now both pro-P and pro-I? Come off it. AGK [ • 12:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. I understand your annoyance and frustration over this, and I'm sorry for that, but "Come off it" implies that I've made these comments frivolously or in bad faith, and I assure you that's not the case. I'm glad you blocked Cptnono for 24 hours saying that an opponent breeds cancer; that seems quite mild to me for such a comment, however, and as I observed above, you've ignored other name calling of a similar nature by Cptnono's usual traveling companions.

I'll reiterate that my major concern was the perception I gained from what I'm able to see that:

1. You knew Ed intended to close that request with no action taken,
2. Ed had asked for proposals re how to close and you made none,
3. You did not respond to Ed's proposal to close,
4. Ed politely asked you if you wished to comment further or make any proposal before he closed,
5. You made no such comment or proposal,
6. Instead you put up a message at the request page asking if Ed had any comments,
7. You took down that message two hours and 45 minutes later, and
8. You proceeded to issue a much more severe response than had been proposed by Ed.

Were you within the letter of the law to do this? Yes, you were. Did you game the process to effectively race to the finish line and impose a much harsher result than would have otherwise occurred? It would appear so, from the information I've been able to review. As I said, I'd be happy to be shown reason to believe that you didn't take advantage of Ed's collegial request for additional comments to race ahead of his intended close and impose your own much more severe outcome.

Can you tell me, for example,

• Why you didn't respond to Ed's proposal, or make any proposal of your own?
• Why instead of responding to his polite request for additional comments, you posted a message asking if he had any additional comments?
• Why you took that message down so quickly, and closed, apparently before he could reply?

Actually, that last point seem the crux to me. Will you please tell me specifically whether Ed had responded to your "back at you" request for additional comment, or whether you had any reason at all to believe that he was even aware of it, before you deleted it and proceeded to your preferred outcome?  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 13:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You have answered yourself. I took down the message because I realised that Ed was asking for somebody else to make comment or take action. And there was no "race", because nobody seemed to want to conclusively close the thread: Enigma made a comment but didn't propose a method of proceeding; and Ed did not seem to want to want to take action. That is why I closed the thread. Is there anything else outstanding that you want me to answer? AGK [ • 13:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Ed didn't ask "for somebody else to make comment or take action". He asked for comments, and the closure certainly wasn't hanging fire as you suggest, either. It was proceeding in an orderly way to an outcome that you evidently disapproved of, but didn't bother to discuss or participate in shaping in any cooperative way. The discussion is here.

And yes, I know you're not required to do so, but I see no reason why you should have refused to do so, either, and instead imposed what appears to have been an outcome that other administrators would not have supported. I also just noticed that, like Ed, admin Gatoclass was also in favor of closing with no action, btw. Anyway, I'm afraid nothing you've said here has given me any reason to change my impression of your actions in this. I'm sorry to have to say that, but I think this should end the discussion of this matter unless SD decides to file an appeal.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I think it is inappropriate for you to question my actions, and then decide that the matter is ended when I try to respond. In relation to your latest point, know that it is common on AE for a sysop to, from the offset of a request, either take on a primary role (in which they propose, or take, enforcement action) or a secondary role (in which they only 'steer' the discussion or comment on the proposals or actions of others). In this case, I took on a primary role; it was my understanding that Ed was taking on a secondary role, as he had not proposed any action. I will accept that I was wrong to think that if Ed states that he intended to action, but he has not at all did so. I wonder if we should just ask Ed himself, although it won't make much difference, because it will remain the case that I thought he was not going to action the request, and therefore that I was not "jumping the gun".

You obviously think that I did not agree with the request being closed with a lenient sanction, and that I raced in to be the one to sanction SD. The reality, which you do not seem to understand, is that nobody was going to action it. Ed wasn't, Enigma wasn't, and nobody else was. The request was languishing, probably because the discussion was getting so lengthy and only somebody (like me) who had been following it since the beginning could comprehend it. (We must also consider that I have rebutted your allegation that my recent actions demonstrate impartiality.) Either you genuinely think that Ed was going to close the request differently from a 6-month topic ban, and that I therefore am biased against SD, or you don't really think that Ed was, in which case you are pursuing this because you think I should have acted differently. I question your decision to impartially evaluate my actions, because, respectively, you are either incapable of accurately understanding the events here, or you are simply biased against me or in favour of SD (unlikely; you don't seem biased). Or I misunderstood Ed in the beginning, in which case, circumstance has led you to reasonably, but wrongly, reach your conclusion—but I don't think that's at all the case. I agree now that this discussion will soon yield diminishing returns, but I think it would be productive for you to respond, because this comment relates to a point that is critical but that we have not yet discussed. Of course, the decision is yours to take, because this is your talk page, but know that this administrator values his reputation as an impartial and fair adjudicator. Regards, AGK [ • 14:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

( ← outdenting ) You are of course welcome to post any additional concerns, AGK. I'm sorry if I gave you any different impression; I was merely expressing my view on the likely productivity of continuing the discussion. Perhaps I was mistaken in that view, and I didn't mean to offend you by expressing it.

I can't reply at length to your several points now, but I will just say that you're correct to infer that it was my strong impression that Ed intended to close without action. I believe that was admin Gatoclass' recommendation, as well, who wrote,

I can't see much that is sanctionable here. SD has not edit warred, there are just two edits on two separate pages and I think they would probably come under WP:BRD. The Israel category is contentious but again, I don't see why BRD should not apply. Users are entitled to do some editing, and occasionally to make errors of judgement, without fear of sanction.

And the only reason the case was in any way hung up, as I understood it from this discussion, was that Ed had been waiting for you to reply to SD for over eight days.

It was further my impression that Ed would have closed the case without action since he wrote to you,

Would you like to make a proposal of what to do? I do not have any strong opinion myself, but I tend to support closing without sanctions if those presenting the arguments don't have a coherent case which is easy to follow. SD's behavior may be a bit unusual, but he would not be the first person to deserve that adjective to work on I/P articles.

And he'd previously written at the ( now archived request page), after asking others for proposals and comments,

I have left messages for AGK and Enigmaman to see if they wish to comment further. Lacking a definite suggestion, this case may be closed with no action.

It does seem quite clear to me that Ed was intending to close with no action, and that he was asking for yours and others' opinions before he did so. Of course, we'll probably never know, since I doubt Ed would be willing to express his opinion at this point. Perhaps he'll tell you in private, although that could have its drawbacks, too, since you couldn't then in any way communicate what he'd told you. I'm sorry, but this is really all I have time to say about this, for now.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 17:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

@AGK: Do the comments I quoted above from Gatoclass and Ed not give you the impression that they favored closing with no action, and that Ed intended to do so, only asking for additional comments first, as a courtesy to other admins? If I've missed something in drawing that conclusion, I'd be glad to know of it, but it does seem pretty clear to me, based on the information I have. What's your view on those statements?

Or perhaps they just got lost, re your attention, in the sheer volume of comments that were made? That would be eminently forgivable, since there was so much to take in. If you tell me that was the case, then it would explain a great deal, and I'd be glad to retract comments I've made, wherever I've made them, conveying my impression that you appeared to have purposely "raced Ed to the finish line" as I've put it. No one, least of all myself, wants to judge another person harshly for a simple oversight. I do the "Honey, where's my blue shirt?" thing, when it's hanging right in front of me in the closet, all the time, myself.

But if you did just miss Gatoclass' and Ed's seeming preference for no action taken, and Ed's intention to close with that outcome, then I'd suggest that you'd do well to just disclose that, and consult in private with Ed and Gatoclass to come to a consensus among the three of you ... or the four of you, if Enigma is enough-online to participate.

You're not required to do so, of course, i.e. to consult with them or even take their wishes into account at all, especially after your closure and with the possibility of revising toward a less extreme result than you might personally prefer. But I do think that it would be the most respectful thing you could do re your fellow admins, and would likely save the community the drama of an appeal, too, with all the hard feelings that would be likely to generate. Would you be able to consider this alternative, and let everyone know in a day or two?

I know this process must have been very extremely irritating to you ( it would to me, were our roles reversed ) and I repeat that I'm truly sorry for that, and for my part in that. But if you can set that to one side, or rise above it, or whatever, would it be possible to bring this to a fairly quick and lower-drama resolution by recourse to the consultation I've suggested?  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 10:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: I posted a talkback re the above that was moved to archives nine hours later along with other posts, without comment. − Ohiostandard 15:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

You are already aware of Jd2718's related enquiries into the SD enforcement thread closure, so I presumed that you were following that. I do not have unlimited time with which to participate in many different threads for the same issue, so I've concentrated on the one on my talk page. Your little note is misleading as to my actions here, but it's your choice as to whether it remains. No, I would not be willing to consider that alternative; the sanction was deserved, and was placed by an uninvolved sysop. Btw, is it coincidental that you've fully challenged me on the due process side of things, whilst another editor has taken up the charge for me being not impartial? I have in the past experienced co-ordinated 'political' attacks of Wikipedia administrators of this nature. Anyway, the Jd2718 thread is settled now, and I do not see much point in prolonging this one either. Can we now do what you suggested some time ago, and close this thread, or would that earn me another note of the "User dishonourably ignored this thread and my talkbacks!!!" nature? AGK [ • 11:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hmm ... this rises above exasperation to exacerbation. ( See if I politely correct your grammar again any time soon ;-). As I said, I understand your exasperation, and I have considerable sympathy for it, but it doesn't extend so far as to countenance allegations of some kind of "coordinated political attack". I've had no off-wiki communications with Jd2718 or anyone else about this matter, and have only exchanged a couple of posts in total with him, as far as I can recall, ever. I'm going to put your apparent suggestion to the contrary down to understandable anger at feeling unfairly criticized. And while I think you're making an unfortunate mistake by refusing to undertake the consultation I suggested, it's a mistake that our policies permit you to make, so I'll not try to convince you to change your mind about that.

Re my small note, you read far to much into it. It's simply a statement of fact; I don't like to leave threads "dangling" and when I don't see a reply to a specific question that I consider important, it's not in any way unusual for me to document that in this way. I could have just written something like, "I've received no reply, but it's evident from subsequent comments AGK has made to other editors on his talk page that he does not intend to accede to the suggestion I've made here." Perhaps you would have considered that more polite; I'm sorry that the timestamp method I normally use in such a case seemed disrespectful to you. I didn't intend it so. And yes, unless you'd like to make some final comment, which you're entirely welcome to do, I also see no reason to continue this discussion.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 12:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the acknowledgment. It is encouraging. Perhaps you may be interested in a read of my latest new article creation, It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 14:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

And look! He can write, too! ;-) You're welcome, Cirt. I was interested, and read your article with pleasure. I can't tell you what a breath of fresh air it is to see articles presented out of the gate that are of such high quality. So many people throw trash out into mainspace, things they created in an hour or two, while watching television, as it seems, just to get a high article count. But no space junk for you! Good on you, I'm very impressed, and thank you for pointing me to your article.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 00:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

This whole mess at with Mbz1 looks like an extension of her behavior that has been under scrutiny in the WP:ARBPIA topic area that she was topic banned from. This dispute concerns me because one of the articles that she specifically argued were outside the topic area. The assumption being that article was well enough outside her ban to avoid these unpleasant behaviors. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know, RA. To be perfectly frank I'm so sick of the extraordinarily mean-spirited behavior I've seen in the past few days, with her pals showing up to say "my friend, right or wrong!" in effect, that I'm not really in the calmest state of mind to want to decide anything so significant at this point. I feel more sorrow at seeing her behavior than I do anger, but there's certainly some of that, too. I guess I'm saying that I'd like to get a day or two of distance from this before I decide whether I'd support what you're suggesting. My inclination right now would be to say it's unavoidable, but that could just be because I'm still feeling chafed about this. Can I get back to you?  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 21:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Absolutely that's a remarkably mature attitude towards it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 22:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I believe you should take me right to ArbCom. Just think about that Mbz1/Custom-made "Naked Emperor" Barnstar case! It will be preserved in the history of Wikipedia forever, and you'd be Wikipedia's heroes. Besides I was taken to AE once before, please let's do something new this time :-) OK?-- Mbz1 ( talk) 03:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Smarmy condescension doesn't really help your case any, y'know. Consider growing up and letting petty wiki-animosities die quietly, instead of angrily attacking everyone and everything beginning the moment your bans were lifted. Tarc ( talk) 03:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Mbz1, I presume that since you continue to post to my talk after asking me not to post to yours, that you've now rescinded that request?  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 10:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually you repeated many times that no matter I asked you do not post to my talk page, I still could post to yours. Just let me know, if you changed your mind about that generous agreement, and I'll be gone from your talk page.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 13:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I haven't changed my mind, not yet, anyway, I was merely asking whether you still wanted a one-way telephone line. If you think that's beneficial to the project, then by all means have your fun. If you'd like to post again, though, please open a new section to do so since you've just now given reason to doubt that you intend to contribute productively in this one. You'll certainly have your chance to respond in the appropriate forum should people here choose to proceed with any request.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 14:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

@Resident Anthropologist, your point that the topic ban was largely a consequence of Mbz1's habitual and persistent incivility and that said incivility has not at all decreased as a consequence is a good one. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

@Everyone: If people who have any interest in proceeding with some kind of action would like to discuss the possibility further, to see whether there's support for that, I'm willing to host that discussion here. I'm generally pretty slow to decide about questions like this, myself, but I'd be happy hear from others on the matter. I also noticed that Demiurge remarked elsewhere that the SPI case our ubiquitous friend was commenting on so unpleasantly was covered under ARBPIA sanctions, so people might wish to consider whether that merits consideration. I've invited Demiurge to join the discussion here, to expand on his observation, if he cares to do so.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 10:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

The ARBPIA topic area would certainly be a consideration (given, as well, the constant need to skirt the border of the topic-banned area and to harass editors who object to this) but I'm not sure it would even be necessary. We could just start with said habitual and persistent incivility. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, she certainly provides ample material from which one could choose examples.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 20:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

• InfoI am topic banned on I/P conflict, which means that I cannot defend myself on RFC/U without violating my topic ban. This leaves you with the only two options to continue wikihounding me on AE, or on ArbCom case, the only two places I am allowed to discuss I/P related issues. Please have a nice day.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 14:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC) reply

  Stop with the strawman arguments please; you would be allowed to defend yourself at an RfC. Tarc ( talk) 14:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC) reply

May I plead with all of you, fellow editors, to stop creating more drama, desist and move on building an encyclopedia, or whatever your favorite weekend pastime. - BorisG ( talk) 15:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, you previously discussed this topic on ANI. I started a discussion here [1]. Mindbunny ( talk) 16:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

My English is not good enough to know the word "harpies" This word was first added by another editor while the essay was still in my user space. It could be found in their deletion contributions because my user space in which the essay was created is deleted now. In my latest edit I only repeated the word that was there before for consistency. I still do not know the meaning of it.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 23:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Look, Mbz, I'm going to risk saying something that you may just throw back in my face with contempt. I'll say it just this one time, because it's a very personal subject to raise with you. It's this:

I understand the glee you feel at this kind of thing, but it's a dangerous drug you're using to get that rush. I don't mean that it's just bad for your reputation here, or that it could get you site banned. What I mean is that you've been taking delight in taunting and ridiculing people for a long time, apparently as a habit now, and that it's just not good for you, not good for you as a person. Let me put it this way: You take Jewishness very seriously, take Judaism seriously, too: It's not mitzvah to take delight in ridiculing others. You know this.

Yes, I have little doubt that I've used the wrong word to say what I'm trying to say, but it's one of the few Hebrew words I know, and one I particularly esteem. But maybe a better way to say it, if you're familiar with the concept, is that it injures your karma. Go discuss it with a rabbi you respect: It's just not good for your soul to take delight in ridiculing others, or to feel joy at their discomfiture.

I don't tell you this out of any sense of superiority, or condescension, or desire to gain the upper hand. That would be contemptible in one sinner addressing another, not to mention ludicrous. I tell you this because you're another human being, and if you see someone walking toward a cliff or a pit, it's right to tell them of it. You're hurting yourself with this behavior. It's not good for you.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 02:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I found it was not me, who introduced the word "harpies".

I will not respond your other points because knowing you I know it is no use.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 02:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Just as you wish. I will say, however, that after you posted to one of the above sections I looked at your talk page, and saw this. It gives me a much better understanding of your political orientation, I think. Perhaps I'd even feel as you do, had I gone through any of those things.

I bet you'd be surprised, though, at how many of the people you consider your opponents here, or that you think are enemies of Israel or are anti-Semitic, or whatever, would dearly have loved to have been present with the five-year-old girl, and during the encounter with the personnel manager, and at all the similar times, to have kicked the people who were spouting their hatred and ignorance. I would have liked that chance, anyway. So would anyone who has any compassion or self-respect. But I'm sure you disbelieve me, since you so often state your opinion that I have none of the latter. ;-) I nevertheless remain sorry that you were ever subjected to even a single, fleeting instance of that particular kind of evil, however. Cheers,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I would be very grateful for your advice concerning this revert [2] and this talk [3].As I am pretty new here all I am seeing are people reverting my edits for no good reason as far as I can see although I think I know why they are doing it, as that seems to be obvious to even a blind person.Anyway if you are not too busy I would appreciate you having a look.If you cannot then no problem.Thanks. Owain the 1st ( talk) 18:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I already had a tab open to its revision history, Owain, although one of around 100. I would have taken a closer look, anyway, but I also need to let you know that you generally shouldn't post messages like this. If you post to just one or maybe two pages this way, that's probably technically okay, but it's still considered to be very bad form. If you're not already very familiar with the policy about this, you really should take a look, and make sure you understand it fully, before you post any such messages in the future. I don't mean to growl at you, though, and I'm sorry if it sounds that way at all. I just want to make sure you're aware of the rules about this. If you have any questions about that policy at all, I'd be glad to try to help explain it. Best regards,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 21:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

OK,I see.Loads of rules on here. Thanks Owain the 1st ( talk) 21:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

( e/c) Uh oh. My apologies, Owain. You really were asking for advice, I see, rather than an ally. Sorry. You still need to carefully read our policy about canvassing and make sure you understand it completely, though. But I'd suggest you leave the article alone for now, and I promise I'll look at the question very carefully and give you my opinion on its talk page, within 12 hours. I'm sorry I probably won't be able to do so sooner: Real life, you know. But the world won't pass into the age of oysters in that limited time span, nor fall to bits, either, I believe. ;-) Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 21:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes advice, thanks. Owain the 1st ( talk) 21:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

A quick update: I'm sorry, but it turns out that I'm not going to be able to get to this as promptly as I'd at first intended, But I certainly won't forget, either: I'll get to it soon.

I noticed the the arbitration enforcement thing you'd been involved in, though, and I had a couple of comments about that, and about what's necessary to work in the topic area without getting "hauled before the court" every other week. I'd prefer to make those comments privately, as they'll involve some criticism that needn't be aired in public, but I notice your e-mail isn't set up.

I'd suggest that you might like to do so, and that you create a single-purpose, for-wikipedia-only e-mail account on yahoo or hotmail or gmail or wherever, for the purpose. I'd also suggest that you not provide any identifying information in that e-mail account, i.e. that you don't divulge your real name, or your full name, anyway. Once you have such an e-mail account, you should be able to just click on Special:Preferences or here to use it with Wikipedia's e-mail interface; that just takes a moment. Scroll to the bottom of the page you land on, enter the e-mail address, then click at least the first of the four checkboxes there. Click on the "save" button in the lower left corner, and you're done. Don't if you don't want to though. I'll also just mention that our policy against canvassing extends to e-mail, as well, so it should never be used for that purpose. I can say what I'd like to say on-wiki, in "public" too, if you prefer, of course. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 13:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I have done that now. Thanks Owain the 1st ( talk) 14:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Good, thank you. I've responded with some advice about how to contribute effectively here that I'd suggest you might like to review before you continue editing.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 11:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes I have got that and we will see what happens. Thanks Owain the 1st ( talk) 11:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC) 11:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC) reply

And one more friendly bit of advice sent, now.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 03:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thanks for being a "stand up" editor regarding this issue and the surrounding WP:DRAMA. I've no involvement with any of the editors involved. I'm glad to see the right thing done. Cheers, JoeSperrazza ( talk) 22:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Joe. I really regret seeing all the drama in that discussion, but I'm glad to hear that my participation seemed constructive to an objective third party. It's so easy to start responding out of a competitive motive without really being aware of it, in such a context, so I really value this judgment. If you ever feel you'd like to express a contrary opinion re any of my edits or comments that you notice, I'd be grateful for a brief word in that direction, as well. Most cordially,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 09:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey, just wondering if you're going to add that mention of controversy and reference to the Slate article to Joseph Farah, as you seemed to indicate at WP:BLP/N#Joseph Farah? 24.177.120.138 ( talk) 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I think it should be added, but I'm not the one to do so, since other sources may or may not need to be included along with it, and I haven't taken the time to evaluate those. But I'd be willing to look in at the talk page if you want to put together a concise list of sources there, hopefully in a separate section. I'd suggest that you merely list them, as neutrally as possible, with links to them, e.g. "The following sources have been proposed for inclusion, as documenting the vandalism controversy", without any expression of support or deprecation in the statement itself. That would give previously uninvolved parties the ability to weigh in without having to spend a lot of time searching for them in article history. Besides, talk-page use should be strongly encouraged when there's any controversial question to decide, imo. Just my suggestion, but ping me here if you do that, will you?

If you do that, I might make the change myself, but I might not, too. To be frank, I think all our BLPs should be semi-protected. Create an account, make a few constructive edits to non-protected articles, and in a few days you'll be able to make the change yourself. You're not required to do so, of course, but it would solve your problem. Btw, I've updated the text of the "resolved" checkmark that Rob posted at the BLPN thread, and have posted a new message to explain why. You might like to have a look. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 09:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply

The reliable sources for the controversy are in the revision history for the page, yo, and I kinda think it's on the dude who closes the discussion to effect the outcome of it. I'd do it if I could, but I'm not going to beg with {{ editprotected}} templates, given the overwhelming anti-IP bias around here. That's not "my problem," it's Wikipedia's, and creating an account won't fix it. 24.177.120.138 ( talk) 03:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC) reply

		Civility Award
		I've been following your talk page comments here and on the article and project pages, and I'm very impressed with your ability to raise the level of discourse at every turn. You deserve this. Viriditas ( talk) 09:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Most cordial thanks, Viriditas. I'm tempted to swear like a sailor in response − a colloquial expression: sailors are no doubt really delightful people, with exemplary manners − just for the fun irony of that. But I can't quite bring myself to do it. But I'll go so far as to say that I'm just dang darn very grateful for your kind notice!  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 10:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I was not trying to be charming or original; I was attempting to lay out the problem succinctly. How should I have phrased the section title in ANI? 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 19:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Did my comment seem dismissive or condescending? I'm very sorry if it did; that wasn't at all my intention. Let me know if you'd like me to remove it. I'd be glad to, or you're welcome to do so yourself, if I'm not online when you see my reply here.

My main intention was actually to call attention to your post, since it was languishing. I thought that an additional comment that might make people smile would help do that. I wasn't joking, though, about my liking for the way you titled the section. It's true that it makes me smile − "IP hopping infobox bloater" does sound like something a particularly intelligent child might call a schoolyard opponent − but it's also admirably descriptive and concise. I certainly wouldn't propose any different heading. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 19:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Let it stay. I smiled while reading your comment until I got to the part about the trout, something that cannot be done because, well, s/he is an IP hopper. (Maybe one can "frog" such people instead of trouting them?) Thank you for explaining, and for the nudge on the post. 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 21:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply

What a clever use of words and ideas, to think of a hippy-hoppy frog as a more fitting whacking instrument for an IP hopper! You have a pleasant imagination that shows up very nicely indeed, in your use of language. A gift for writing? Looks so, to me. Best regards,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 21:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply

As you know, I was thinking about creating some specific restrictions on incivility. It seems to me that Wikipedia as a whole would benefit if the behavior discouraged by WP:PA would be expanded using language from WP:HOUND specifying edits with "an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor."

WP:PA says "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Certain kinds of comments about other contributors are allowed, however -- for example stating (with evidence) that someone may have a conflict of interest. The difference between an illegitimate PA and a legitimate comment on a contributor seems to hinge on two main distinctions:

• 1) Relevance Is something about the contributor relevant to understanding their contribution to this discussion?
• 2) Evidence Is there evidence to support what you are saying about the other contributor?

I wonder under what circumstances, if ever, it is relevant and therefore allowable to mention that another user has created very few new articles, or has been publicly criticized for some particular action, or is under restrictions by ArbComm, or has been blocked in the past, or has had an article deleted at AfD ... It seems to me that all statements like this, and certainly using words like "troll" or "hound," because of the high likelihood of "creating irritation, annoyance or distress" should require a very high threshold of relevance to illuminating the topic discussed.

One thing that might help defuse the angry accusations that editors with an opposing viewpoint are "involved" would be creating a simple footnote section where people could flag the alleged involvement of other editors. That way the argument about who is "involved" with the subject area or who is "involved" because they like or dislike one of the participants could be kept separate from discussions of the actual topic being discussed. What do you think of this?

Could I interest you in pursuing improvements to the policy WP:PA as an alternative to the AE discussion proposed above? Your energy, compassion, and restraint would be a great advantage toward improving Wikipedia in this way. betsythedevine ( talk) 13:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hmm, I have no objection to flattery, as long as it's sincere. ;-) I've been considering your suggestion, and agree that a clearer policy statement would be beneficial. Let me give it some more thought; I'll get back to you, soon.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 06:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm going to move working on this to User_talk:Betsythedevine/BikeLane. Also, you've got mail, so feel free to visit your mailbox and my sandbox in any order when you get a chance. betsythedevine ( talk) 17:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Noted, thanks. I've been a slug about keeping up with things here, I'm afraid. Sorry.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC) reply

just don't forget to stop, smell the roses, and twiddle some string for the kitten. betsythedevine ( talk) 17:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Ohiostandard. This message is to notify you as a courtesy, in case you don't notice, that I have undid your restoration of the sock-puppetry discussion at WP:AE#Clarification required on scope of Israel-Palestine articles, and posted a full rationale underneath my original comment. I did read your own rationale for restoring the discussion, and responded to your central points in my supplementary remark. Regards, AGK [ • 09:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I responded to your latest remark at AE. To give you some context, as a regular participant at that noticeboard, I frequently encounter discussions that are off-topic and full of vitriol, and that unduly target one particular editor. While I do not for a moment believe that such was your intention, as somebody with an outside perspective on the thread, I do think that the whole thing was becoming progressively unproductive. To me, a simple request for input by some uninvolved administrators by Red Stone Arsenal, in the context of his dealings with an editor who can at times interact quite heatedly, was derailed quite suddenly and insistently with pointed enquiries about his history of accounts. My view, on balance, was that, although there was a procedural argument for terminating the discussion as off-topic, more important was stopping a thread that constituted unfair treatment of another editor. I removed the sub-thread with good intentions, and that I was not acting arbitrarily or without consideration to the value of the specific topic; I hope that this message has shown this. If you want to discuss this a little further, I have watchlisted your talk page and will see your reply. Regards, AGK [ • 22:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I hope that my response didn't put you off. Nothing worth doing is easy :) u n☯ mi 14:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		for your very courteous assistance to a new editor with the Tara Grinstead article. Such actions are what Wikipedia is all about!! jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 02:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC) reply

How very kind, jsfouche! Thank you. I can imagine how disheartening it must be for new users to get their articles shot down just because they don't know our policies, and was glad to be able to help. But can you refresh my memory, please? Should I remember your name, or did you just come across the article somehow and choose to be so gracious as to acknowledge a stranger in this very pleasant way? Most cordially,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 05:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Looks fine as far as I can see. the only thing I'd avoid doing is including the "undid edit by.." part. Sometimes we leave those in there, and I've probably done it myself, but simply saying you've added the rationale is sufficient to add the image back. Undo can sometimes have a bit of a contentious tone around these issues.-- Crossmr ( talk) 14:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, I fully agree with your suggestion that we move our discussion to the Robert John Kerr talk page.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 18:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I think I should point out that in the blockquote the Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions stated that both men (Jackson and Kerr) were known to police as notorious UVF murderers. That comment is pretty telling. Had they been brought to trial, they would have been tried, like Weir and McCaughey, in a Diplock Court and not before a jury.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 19:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi again. Regarding this revert of Soosim ( talk · contribs), by restoring the article to TaalVerbeteraar ( talk · contribs)'s version, I fear you're making yourself an accomplice in abusing Wikipedia's neutral voice. As User:Soosim argued correctly in his edit summary, there is no shortage of sources that undermine the claim that Israel's blockade of Gaza is illegal. See my comment on the Discussion page: either use in-text attribution or leave out the controversial term.— Biosketch ( talk) 11:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Ohiostandard. I was looking at the history of an article, and I noticed you removed a template with the edit summary Rm POV tag repeatedly placed by now topic-banned user Mbz1. However, it seems that she was actually removing it, and other editors were adding it. Were you thinking of some other article? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

You were looking at the history of that particular article that you've never edited, and just happened across that particular two-month-old edit? That's quite a coincidence. I imagine I meant to write something like, "Removing POV tag repeatedly necessitated by Mbz1", although I don't now recall. Why, did Mbz1 ask you to address this with me in your administrative capacity? If not, then what's your interest?  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 11:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Ohiostandard. Yes, I saw that posting on Mbz1's page, and no-one asked me to address this in my administrative capacity. I was curious as to why you used that edit summary; thanks for indicating it was incorrect. Cheers! Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

OhioStandard, DocJames, Steinberger, I believe that we are at a place where this content dispute needs the input of other parties beyond the neutral third party comment previously requested and received on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. DocJames, you appear ready to take action and this may be a possible way ahead, so invite you to take it. I certainly feel that mediation/arbitration of the issue is the next step according to what I see in the dispute resolution policies. I have not altered text on the pages with disputed text, but if you have not initiated a further step in dispute resolution in the next few days then I will be happy to initiate it. Minphie ( talk) 08:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Illicit Drug Interventions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minphie ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Good luck! Pasindu Kavinda   Talk 11:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much. I presume this is in appreciation for the attempts I've made to help moderate conflicts over articles about the Sri Lankan Civil War? Apologies for being slow to acknowledge your kindness, by the way; I've been mostly offline over the summer, and have just now seen this. Best regards,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 21:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC) reply

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, OpenInfoForAll ( talk) 22:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Ohiostandard - a belated note of thanks for your encouraging comment on my talkpage at a time when I was in need of such - I am grateful - best wishes to you. - Off2riorob ( talk) 19:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh, you're very welcome, Rob: I've always liked you and esteemed your obvious dedication, nevermind that all your political opinions happen to be wrong ;-) But really, thank you yourself for evidently not having taken the other amiss, and for being able to hear that non-defensively, even if it might not have been as welcome. The ability to do that little thing, to hear criticism without a defensive reaction is certainly one of life's most vexing and persistent challenges, of course, and one I struggle mightily with myself. Best regards,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 19:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Your email was tough love and a position that I can hope to attain. Thanks for that especially. Rob - Off2riorob ( talk) 19:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Cheers, mate, and all the best.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 19:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Because a certain pro-Zionist editor that I happen to particularly respect remarked on a different application I made of the word, I think some brief comment would be appropriate here about the use I've made on discussion pages of "ultra-extreme" to characterize a particular claim that some few of his friends have been promoting to the world as simple fact, using Wikipedia's voice to do so. I refer to the claim, emphatically and overwhelmingly rejected by the international community, that the territory Israel took by force from its neighbors, and that its continues to occupy and settle by force, is "in Israel", or is "an integral part of Israel", as one editor put it.

Now I appreciate that none of us is likely to feel all warm and fuzzy on hearing his political beliefs described as being in any way "extreme", and that this remains so even when one recognizes objectively that his opinions do happen to fall quite far from the main stream. I'd regret it if anyone felt himself obliged to take offence over that, but any such feeling would be based on a simple misapprehension of what I mean by the word. So I want to take a moment to make it absolutely clear that I use it as a simple description of where this claim lies relative to the preponderance of world opinion, and absolutely not to express judgment as to its morality.

I suppose people dislike the characterization largely because the leap from "extreme" to infer the word "immoral" is so common among lazy thinkers. But it's an erroneous leap, and a simply mistaken usage to identify the two words. Of course, I do have both positive and negative judgments about the morality of actions undertaken by actors in the geopolitics of the region, as everyone who's read anything of its history no doubt has. But I don't arrive at those judgments by holding a wetted finger up to the ever-shifting winds of world opinion, nor do I revise my conclusions when I happen to notice they differ greatly from what most people think.

Or at least I hope I don't do that, since whether a belief falls at an extreme or a central position in the distribution of current world opinion doesn't determine whether it's morally right. On the contrary, it's each person's privilege and duty to judge that for himself, based on his values and on the intrinsic merits he's able to discover in the case, always striving to remain as independent and uninfluenced by others' judgments as he can.

Although I'd not express it without qualification, nor in the same sound-bite words he employed, it's this same principle that the American politician Barry Goldwater famously drew from when he remarked that, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice", and that Malcolm X, Gandhi, and so many others have supported as well.

I understand that making an observation that the belief in Israel's sovereign right to ownership of the occupied territories is at the extreme end of the spectrum relative to the overwhelming preponderance of world opinion isn't going to win me any BFFs among those who passionately hold to it. But stating what one notices from emminently reliable sources about how a belief compares to world opinion isn't the same thing as condemning it, even if the person doing the noticing does happen to object to it on other grounds. Observation isn't always coincident with condemnation, in other words, and certainly not with condemnation of a person, and it shouldn't be interpreted as if it were.

What I do condemn, though, and what all of us here must condemn, is the behavior of people who repeatedly assert what they know are opinions from an extreme end of the distribution as if they were simple facts, or who present their extreme opinions as if they were the accepted canon of the main stream. They may be great people overall, and scrupulous to a fault in other areas of their lives, but they aren't suited to the task of editing an encyclopedia, and must be excluded from the privilege of doing so.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 13:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC) ( with minor clarification of opening sentence on 18:54, 30 January 2012 UTC ) reply

Hi! I went back to the AE thread and it appears that I was the only one who directly objected to your use of the word ultra-extemist. Thus I will assume that the entire comment is directed to me. It all sounds logical from the first glance, but for the following important points:

• There is no need to label editors as pro-Zionist and to characterise other editors as friends. This isn't good form. If I make a biased edit or comment, bring it on!
• I have objected to use of the word ultra-extremist. I don't recall ever reading this word before. I think extremist is extreme enough in any context and using the prefix ultra is a manifestation of battleground approach.
• In my AE comment, I objected to the use of the word ultra-extremist to characterise a left-leaning Israeli historian Benny Morris, a real person. Suggesting that I objected to the use of the word ultra-extremist to characterise a particular claim that some few of his friends have been promoting to the world is a direct distortion of my comment. I AGF and am thus prepared to assume that you misread my comment. I ask you to read it again and kindly retract your false claim.
• I think the use of the term ultra-extremist or extreme about a living notable person is inappropriate. Our own article on Benny Morris does not say that he is an ultra-extremist, or extremist. I think this is an outright BLP violation and should be retracted (unless backed by reliable sources).
• I did not defend edits that say territories that the UN considers occupied territory, are in Israel. You will not find my defence of such claims. However these views are not extreme. A view that contradicts a majoiry view is not extreme. For instance, one person who recently expressed views consistent with this view is one Newt Gingrich. As far as I know, Newt Gingrich is a former speaker of one of the houses of the US congress from a major mainstream party, not some marginal or extremist organisation. There is no need to use such battleground terms to characterise a minority view.
• There is also some subtlety about the use of the words in Israel, in a sense that while some places are considered by the international community to belong to, say, Syria, they are currently in possession of Israel (as any visitor to Israel can readily assertain; e.g. by visiting the Golan heights or Mt. Hermon and getting a speeding ticket from an Israeli policeman). I know several editors insisted that these places are in Syria, but you can hardly meet an Israeli policeman in Syria... Again, this may be subtle, but such statements, while consistent with the international position, may be misleading for the readers. But this is a bit tangent to the original discussion, as I had made no statement with respect to these claims.

Sincerely. - BorisG ( talk) 15:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi, yourself, Boris! Good to hear from you. I'll try to find time soon to reply to the balance of your comments, but I do want to respond, in the few moments I have available now, to the personal concern you expressed in your third and fifth bullet points in response to phrasing in my opening sentence that you interpreted as misrepresenting one of your previous remarks.

Because I see how it would have been possible to come away with the inference you drew from that first sentence, I did go ahead and insert a few words to clarify its intent, in deference to your feelings, and likewise reflected the small addition in the section's timestamp. But of course I knew that the objection you raised at AE to "ultra-extreme" was in my application of the description to Morris, rather than to the use I made of it to characterize edits saying the occupied territories are in Israel. That is, while I think it was a very reasonable mistake to make, I'm afraid I have to inform you that you've almost completely misunderstood the purpose and focus of the comments I made above by interpreting them as a personal reply.

If you re-read the first sentence even without the courtesy revision I've just made to it, you'll see I wrote only that you "remarked on the word", not on any particular application I made of it, and certainly not on the application that constituted the whole reason I wrote the preceding at all. I didn't post my remarks as any sort of reply to you, in other words, nor was I really trying to address your particular objection. I composed and posted the preceding because this matter of claiming locations in the occupied territories are "in Israel" is going to come up again, and I will not have my subsequent description of edits that do so misconstrued as a value judgment.

( By the way, both the application I made of "ultra-extreme" to Morris after reading his opinion that the totality of Palestinian society is a serial killer whose members should be imprisoned or exterminated as such, and the use I made of the word to characterize edits claiming that the occupied territories are in Israel are far from the "manifestation of a battleground approach" that you assert. On the contrary, and in all seriousness, the word was the most polite and neutral term I could come up with to refer to what appears to be hate speech that seriously proposes ethnically-motivated genocide in the one case, and to the intentional assertion of a position that not even the Israeli government maintains, as if it were simple fact, in the other. A less charitable person might be tempted to call the latter simple deception, and might reasonably be forgiven for doing so. )

I thought it would be understood, but perhaps I should have said explicitly that the mention I made of your objection to "ultra-extreme" was purely incidental to everything I wrote above, i.e. a convenient occasion or point-of-departure for opening the comments I wanted to make about my use of the description where it could also raise an objection if construed as judgmental rather than descriptive.

Again, these comments weren't directed at you, or made for your benefit, nor intended as a response to your objection. That's why I didn't post them to your talk page, or identify you by name, or even ping your talk to inform you of them. They weren't for you: I wrote them because I don't want any comments I make in the same or similar terms about where the claim we've been seeing re the occupied territories falls relative to the world view to be misconstrued in any future discussions as a moral judgment or personal condemnation.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 21:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply

OS, if your comment is not directly related to my objection, then I do not understand why you needed to mention my remarks at all (and give me a label in passing). It is very confusing, but whatever. However your new remarks about Benny Morris are even more troubling that the initial ones. But I do not want to engage in this debate because Wikipedia is not a forum. If you find a consensus of third party, reliable sources that back up your remarks, then you can bring them on and maybe modify the Wikipedia article about him. Until then, your remarks represent WP:Original Research and a BLP violation. I think wikipedia is linient with respect to the use of original research on talk pages, but not in BLP cases (see WP:BLPTALK). Cheers. - BorisG ( talk) 15:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Boris, you mean that you're troubled by my remarks, not that my remarks are troubling. They're not troubling to the gravitational constant, as far as I know, nor to penguins or pandas, and they're certainly not troubling to me. But it's not really cricket to say you don't want to debate this, and then go on to reprimand me about it, now is it? It sounds to me more like you don't want me to debate it, but you want to be free to do so yourself.

I'll tell you what. For the sake of peace in the family, I'll agree that it wasn't particularly "good form", as you put it, to refer to you, even indirectly and anonymously in passing, as "a certain pro-Zionist editor that I happen to particularly respect". I'll even say with all sincerity that I regret the distress that's obviously occasioned for you, if I haven't made that sufficiently clear to you already. I doubt you'd have liked it better, though, if I'd named you explicitly, and simply used your words verbatim to label you "an ardent propagandist for one side"? Perhaps you don't recall that you applied that particular label to me without presenting a scrap of evidence to even claim that I'd violated the NPOV of a single article? You do know that a "propagandist" is someone who uses mass-media deceptively to try to influence public opinion, right? So to call someone that without adducing any evidence to support it, or even without having any such evidence in mind, apparently, could also be viewed as somewhat shy of "good form", yes? Or maybe you've forgotten that when you referred to someone anonymously yourself last year by the obviously pejorative label of "activist editor" that you didn't see him turn up at your talk page complaining about being "labeled", as you have, here?

You might like to have another look at WP:NOR, "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." Neither that policy, nor BLPTALK prevents editors from evaluating sources or prohibits them from discussing those evaluations candidly among themselves. If you disagree, well, you know where the relevant noticeboards are. If you do head over to BLP/N, though, please be ready to argue that you would not remark similarly about a source who called the entire Israeli society "sick", "a serial killer", and "barbarian". Until then, please refrain from accusing me of violating policies that I'm at least as familiar with as you are, yourself.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 15:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I think misunderstand my words. I said I won't argue whether your opinion about Benny Morris is right or wrong, only that a remark like than about a living person may be a violation of Wikipedia policies. I think you applied your characterisation to a person, not to the source. As for my remark about you, I think your behaviour on the AE page was self-evident. You single-handedly managed to have an opposing editor indefinitely topic banned. I have never done something like that; in fact I have at times objected to sanctions of pro-Palestinian editors. And I do not think your edits are bised, but rather your comments. I guess we have to agree to disaagree on this. Cheers. - BorisG ( talk) 16:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Re: top ban proposal. [4]

I appreciate you taking the time to comment. It is nice that as far as pyramid schemes, there is at least one thing all wikpedians can agree on. Have a great weekend! Calendar2 ( talk) 18:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC) reply

You're quite welcome; I was glad to help. And thanks, yourself, for researching the problem and documenting it at AN/I and SPI. It's good to see the system work the way it's supposed to re COI editing. Cheers,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 19:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC) reply

There is absolutely no rule anywhere that states that section titles on ANI should not be "prejudicially phrased", unless I am mistaken. WikiSkeptic is not "accused" of disruption. He disrupted. I've changed the section title back to the version I initially put there and getting rid of your unnecessary comments to suggest otherwise.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 23:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Neither " why the hell did you do that?", nor your tone above constitutes an invitation to discuss this calmly. I understand you're upset right now, and that it's no fun to feel that way. Still, you've opened this with me in a way I'm not remotely interested in continuing. Go read the edit notice for this page, read the talk page guidelines for section headings, note the included exceptions, and then come back in 24 hours if you're then able to respectfully discuss this with me, rather than just trying to aggressively debate it to vent your frustration.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Minphie is back. He now tries to insert a Drug Free Australia report into the research section of the Insite article, where it is used to say that an article in Lancet is dead wrong. I have removed most of it and rewritten some, namely regarding a letter by the DFA report's authors to Lancet while adding the Lancet articles authors response. You can find his whole contribution at Talk:Insite#3O where it is in the collapsed box, and the part on the letter is at the end of the research section in Insite article itself ( Insite#Research. He have also turned to Reliable Sources Noticeboard ( WP:RSN#Drug Free Australia) to hear if DFA reports is admissible. I think I know what you think on the DFA report itself, but what about the letters to Lancet by its authors? I am not entirely comfortable with having it even mentioned in that section, but I can't find an argument why it should not. Best regards. Steinberger ( talk) 07:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi, Steinberger; I already know. I was very dismayed to see his original post, at RSN, a couple of days ago. I also notice he posted three separate third-opinion requests for the Insite article ( link/ permalink) within four hours of his RSN post, which I consider very bad form, indeed. He's a great detriment to the topic area, imo, just so disruptive in his utter refusal to accept consensus with his one-man campaign to admit crap sources that support his POV. I immediately began researching and composing a response. I also noticed your own reply there. I'm not through with either the writing or the research yet ( I'm a slow writer, and I tend to get lost in the research, which I actually like more than writing ) but my response there should be pretty comprehensive. I should be able to post within a few days.

I can say with assurance now, though, based on what I've already found, that some of the most important assertions he makes in his RSN post are false, while others are brazen distortions. I've found multiple sources that show Drug Free Australia for what it is: a propaganda organization that has no scientific credibility. I think those will put an end to any suggestion that it be admitted as a wp:rs, once other editors see them.

As an aside, one of their principal "researchers" has been publicly ridiculed for asserting that condoms cause HIV infection, believe it or not. Perhaps you're aware that the organisation's director, and many of its principal champions in Australia, are Seventh Day Adventists? I certainly respect every person's right to his own religious beliefs, and I won't mention that connection at RSN, but there's not a more anti-science group of people anywhere, in my own experience. I dated a woman who was a fervent Adventist, many years ago, and was shocked to learn, for example, that she seriously believed the earth is only ... I think it was 4,000 or 7,000 years old. She was a lovely woman, but no scientific evidence to the contrary could make it past her wall of religious conviction.

If your Wikipedia e-mail is activated I may try to mail you a copy of what I've written so far, within the next day or so; you might like to check your inbox. Thanks for keeping up with the topic area; I've meant to keep a closer eye on it myself, but have had to let that slip a bit, in favor of other responsibilities. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 10:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Condoms causes HIV infection? I don't know if I should laugh or cry! Well, I am late already for my nightly meeting with Sandman. But I have activated my e-mail and you are very welcome to share what you have found when you see fit. Be well, Steinberger ( talk) 22:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Minphie's request at third opinion board

• Hey, Ohiostandard, I'm one of the people who frequents the 3O board. I saw your post, and I'm a bit confused as to what's going on; could you possibly explain in a bit more depth? I have a feeling that this guy's 3O requests should be declined, but none of us really are confident enough in our grasp of the situation to do so. Who exactly is this Minphie guy, and what's his deal? Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 13:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Sure, Writ: I love you guys who keep the various editor assistance boards humming. Apologies if my comment confused you: I recognise it was probably a bit unusual to post the link to RSN the way I did, but I couldn't think of any other reasonable way to do it. I do have to be rather quick at the moment, but I'll try to answer with enough detail to help. I should also say that I probably won't be able to follow up to any response you may post for at least 12 hours.

Right, then: In the first, place, let me disclose that I'm an "involved party" with respect to any dispute with user Minphie. I haven't edited the harm reduction articles like Insite for some time, around 6 - 12 months, iirc, but I'm very familiar with this single-purpose user. He has been on a wiki campaign all by himself for several years now to oppose any kind of harm reduction measures in the area of drug addiction. For example, you might like to look at the request he launched with ArbCom last summer, a request they declined. Here's a link to a diff of the requests page, one edit before the ultimate decline. ( I wish they archived pages; I don't know why they just delete declined requests. )

My own comment at the ArbCom request will provide some helpful context, I think. Basically, in that request Minphie was trying to include "research" from Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (JGDPP) in all our harm reduction articles. If you look at our article on the JGDPP "journal" you'll be surprised, I assure you. One thing not mentioned in the JGDPP article, btw, is that it has been cited by legitimate journals only three times in total according to the only journal ranking service I could find that bothers to index it. Further, I recall that two of those three citations ridiculed it as a scam, essentially, as a so-called "astroturfing" effort by Drug Free Australia's friends at the Drug Free America Foundation. I never was able to find the third cite that the ranking service reported had been made.

In declining the ArbCom request, arbitrator Elen of the Roads wrote, "Given that the community has repeatedly rejected this journal as a MEDRS source, would it not be easier just to block the filing party indefinitely for disruptive editing, given that he is the only one persistently adding it to articles?" The one arbitrator who !voted "Accept", John Vandenberg, gave as his only rationale, "This has gone on long enough." My presumption is that he, too, would have been in favour of an indef block or topic ban for Minphie, also, although that's only a guess.

All this said, I know you don't know me, and I recognise that this might well sound like just another POV-driven rant against an editor one disapproves of. I do think I'm being more objective than that, of course, but probably every editor making similarly harsh comments would make the same self-assessment, and insist that he only has the good of the project in mind. I should also say that ArbCom suggested Minphie seek other dispute resolution avenues, and I absolutely do not want to discourage anyone from offering a third opinion; very much the contrary, actually.

I'd just be happier about it if you and your mates, and anyone else who's considering trying to evaluate what's going on with the request at your board, or at RSN, or with the user who's made them, would dig deeply enough to before they respond re Drug Free Australia....

Blast it. I know it must be annoying to read an apparently condescending statement like that last one, without much to support it at this point. ... Since this does seem to be simmering up so close to the boiling point now, I'll see if I can possibly find time to post more completely to RSN sooner than I'd intended. I can't promise I'll be able to ( I'm sorely pressed for time IRL right now ) but I'll try. I hope that will that help people make sense of this.

I'll leave it to your discretion as to whether the RSN thread should supersede the third-opinion requests or not. My own view is that it was rather disruptive to post to both "three-oh" and RSN, within four hours of each other, and that the "three-oh" requests might best be declined without prejudice in favour of possibly contributing to the RSN thread. But that's just my opinion as an "involved" party, and other editors should decide for themselves, of course. Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 15:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your explanation; it was very helpful. After some research and reflection, I've decided to merge the 3O requests into one and answer it. I think that there are some content issues that can be decided without a decision on whether DFA is a reliable source; I'm still composing my 3O reply, but I intend on addressing those issues, while deflecting the reliable source issues in favor of the more specialized RSN discussion. Thanks again for your help. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 16:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Ohiostandard. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I actually am not sure who it is (it's been a while, so I don't really remember if I've asked for a CU to be run, but usually whoever owns those throwaway accounts is crafty enough to evade checkuser). It is quite obvious, though, that it is someone, and so WP:SOCK means that it cannot be used in project space without its ownership being proper disclosed. T. Canens ( talk) 01:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks; you're obviously correct, and good on you for the block. These throwaway and sleeper accounts plague the topic area; we really need to find a way to deal with them effectively and consistently. The only time I came at all close to being blocked was when I reinstated a question asking an obvious example whether he'd edited previously, after an admin who wasn't familiar with their ubiquity in the topic area - a current arbitrator, no less - reverted the question as bitey.

Anyway, I didn't see SPI or CU results either, for the example you blocked, and I'm still curious. I'd like to learn more about detecting socks, actually. I loathe them, and think anyone who socks should get a mandatory, non-reducible three-month block at the very first instance.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 09:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for your continued good work keeping an eye on medical cannabis. I can't wait to see you turn it into a good or featured article. Viriditas ( talk) 07:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I've added few incidents and restored one (I think it was removed by mistake), should I use news source, date , number scheme to write each one or something else  ? as I continue to find more and more incidents during 2010 and 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.14.184 ( talk) 08:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC) reply

you have removed an already cited indecent but that creates an incorrect view (as the first report of WP used is in 2009 and not 2010) this make incorrect information on that section (also very important information is removed is that the EMS services are ordered now to have WP treatment facilities from Jan 2009) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.14.184 ( talk) 13:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Please wait. I am not trying to ignore you, and I am not trying to be disrespectful or delete important content. I am still in the process of editing. I will reply more here within 30 minutes, but until then, please read the "Gaza War (2008-2009)" section of the article. Also, please try to remember to end all your messages with four "tilde" symbols, like this ~~~~ . That is what adds your "signature" so I know who I am talking to. Also, thank you for communicating in English; I am sorry I cannot communicate in your native language; I only know French like a school boy, besides English. Best regards,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 14:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I agree with your decision to restore the 3 external links to the Seamus (dog) page. I think that provides the article with a good balance of views. Thank you. Debbie W. 22:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply

You're welcome; thanks for saying so. I likewise appreciate your fine work in creating and adding to the article; I've gone ahead and watchlisted it. Also, if it won't seem very condescending of me to say so, I'll mention that I'm glad we still have women editors here. I thought the last few of the other kind had packed up and left during 2010, when my brethren organized a, "What the heck, let's be especially snide this month" festival. That's as much to say that I hope you'll stick around, that you won't be put off by the unfortunate and needlessly aggressive nature of the conflicts that arise around political articles, which an admin acquaintance of mine has amusingly and rather accurately described as "thorny nests of woe".

You may be interested to know, btw, that I found the Seamus article after I saw an admin edit warring with an IP at the corresponding campaign article, and then commented about that on the article's talk page before editing there. In the process, I looked for sources about what's being called "cookiegate" - the subject of the dispute. I found many articles that discussed both that incident and poor Seamus' ordeal together, may he rest in peace. Search for "cookiegate" + "Seamus" and you'll see what I mean... I loathe people who abuse animals. Let us hope that God is a dog rather than a Mormon, and that when Romney arrives at the pearly gates he'll be doused with a hose, put in a cage, and strapped to the top of a car for a 12 hour ride to the other place! Best,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 08:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Did you see this, btw? No comparison between the behaviour of a child acting in accordance with the cultural norm he lives under and the deliberate action of an adult. Still, the description by the Romney crowd of the photo as "chilling" is shrewd politics, in its deliberate use of satire, and very funny, too, of course.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 09:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC) reply

When I first created the Seamus article in January, I did so because I was surprised that Wikipedia had no coverage of the topic. I don't frequently edit political articles. Within 48 hours, my article had been speedy deleted. I appealed the speedy deletion on the grounds that speedy deletion is only meant for articles with zero significance. A decision was made that the article should go to AfD. The AfD for Seamus initially decided that the article should be merged with the Mitt Romney article, but the frequent editors of the Romney article refused to accept the AfD's decision, so the closing admin changed his decision to 'no consensus' which means that the article stayed. Because of the frequent news coverage of the incident, the article has rapidly grown in the last three months.

I did see the news articles of the Romney camp comparing Obama eating dog in Indonesia at 10 years old with Romney's 1983 road trip. It's absurd, and Scott Walker of Dogs Against Romney gave a very good rebuttal on why the two acts are completely uncomparable: If President Obama had made the conscious decision to eat dog meat as a 36-year old adult, in America, claimed the dog liked being eaten, and still claimed he didn't think there was anything wrong with it, the Romney campaign would have a point and my pack would be on the president like a pack of wild, well....dogs. [5]. Thank you for the link to the cookiegate talk.

Since the Diane Sawyer interview last week, the amount of hits that the Seamus article gets has gone way up. There is a site that tracks Wikipedia article traffic [6], and since the interview, viewership has gone up from 200-300 per day to 1000-2000 per day. More traffic is very good, but it also has resulted in more threats to the article. The two biggest issues that the article is currently facing is a proposal to rename it, and a proposal to remove the picture. See the discussions below.

Proposal to rename

Proposal to delete picture Debbie W. 20:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I'd seen the proposal for the article, since I have it watchlisted, and I planned to comment later today. But I hadn't really noticed the picture proposal, so thanks for that. The Scott Walker quotation made me laugh out loud, literally, with its, "claimed the dog liked being eaten". People really do go a little off-tilt during Presidential elections. I see and admin is now saying that including "cookiegate" is a BLP violation, but maybe it's the link to Let them eat cake that he objects to.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 00:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC) reply

We came to a resolution with the photo to keep it, but change the licensing from Creative Commons CC0 1.0 to non-free historic use. I don't fully agree with the decision because it creates a new standard for evaluating image copyrights, but it allows the photo to stay, which was my main goal. From what I see on the Seamus (dog) page, there is now a AfD open to delete the Seamus article, there is a discussion on the Obama Eats Dogs meme page to consolidate the Seamus and Eats Dog articles, and there is a survey on the Seamus talk page evaluating all the options. Thank you for your help. Debbie W. 12:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you have made edits to the Seamus (dog) article. There is a survey to determine whether the Seamus article should be kept, renamed, merged, or deleted. Thank you. HHIAdm ( talk) 16:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Talk:Seamus (dog)#Consolidated survey reply

My actions on the Talk:Seamus (dog) page were somewhat non-standard, but I think they were necessary to help clean up a mess. I created the survey as a consolidation of various proposals that had been discussed on the Talk page. However, after a few days, I saw that there was clearly no consensus, and people had moved on to other topics. Furthermore, I thought that in light of the open AfD for the Seamus article, the Talk page survey had become a distraction. HHIAdm ( talk) 01:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

There has been a major addition near the top of the Seamus deletion page that states that the grounds for proposed deletion is not a lack of notability, but that the article constitutes gossip or advocacy. Avanu, who supports the deletion of the article states that Seamus "is notable", but that that the article should still be deleted. This is a major change from most of the debate on the page, and I have responded to his claim. Debbie W. 03:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you for notifying me about the typo. Debbie W. 04:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Certainly; you're welcome.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 05:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

It is actually not a change from the debate in the page, but simply a natural result of people not following the lead of the nominating editor (which happens far too often in AfD's). The consequence of that is that people end up arguing points that don't even matter, because they were never in contention. -- Avanu ( talk) 04:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Ohio, I notice you refactored my comment, but I am ok with that as it is in line with Talk Page Guidelines. I don't know why you felt it was disruptive, I am simply trying to keep the discussion more focused on what Metropolitan90's nomination rationale was. I don't see the point in arguing things that are not relevant, like whether the article meets the General Notability Guideline, and yet people continually act as if that was somehow Metropolitan90's point. He never made that point, so why are we debating it? I make the case that it needs to be at the top in a unique color in order to remind people to stay on point rather than arguing a zillion non-sequiturs. -- Avanu ( talk) 04:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Seems to me that users need not respond only to the OP's concerns, in their comments. That is, they're permitted to make affirmative statements that speak to whether the article should be kept or deleted, not just defensive ones, so to speak. I did consider your having top-posted your comment disruptive, in that everyone probably secretly thinks his or her own comments are more important or profound or whatever than everyone else's, but if we all did what you did there'd be no way we could have a "conversation" at all; it'd just be chaos.

Too, while I certainly accept your good intentions, I feel it's improper to try to "guide" or "shape" other editor's responses in quite that way. Finally, while it's probably less of a problem in this particular instance, top-posting does tend to give casual readers − i.e. those who don't read every timestamp − the impression that lower responses ignored the statement that appears above them, which, of course, is incorrect. You've been perfectly civil in your post here, though, so I'll return the favour, and also go ahead and remove the word "disruptive" from my small-text characterisation of your having top-posted. Cheers,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 04:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks, and that was entirely my goal (the encouragement of civility). I see AfD's often degrade into a myriad of competing arguments which might have little to nothing to do with the original reason it was AfD'd. And I do agree that AfD's are not supposed to be rigid, but when people over and over are trying to argue a point that is well-settled (I mean the GNG is pretty clear), it seems silly not to remind them, "hey guys, no one is really arguing that point... or at least they shouldn't be." Its just a red herring. -- Avanu ( talk) 05:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Glad to do so. Again, I appreciate your good intentions, I just object to the top-posting for the reasons I've already given. Similarly, I notice you just removed excessive line breaks that you'd added (inadvertently I'm sure) before a successive post, so thanks for that. I don't agree that stress on meeting GNG is a red herring, though; to me, asserting it positively has value even though no contrary assertion was made by the OP. It looks like we'll just have to disagree on that one.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 05:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I agree that mentioning GNG has value as long as it isn't sidetracking the discussion. AfD's generally are about whether something meets GNG (essentially whether they have enough sourcing), but when they aren't about that, it seems people have a hard time focusing on more subjective rationales for deletion. People like easy and concrete rules, but sometimes things aren't so straightforward. -- Avanu ( talk) 05:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I also replied! Nice to meet you. Riley Huntley ( talk) 04:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

It seems that no one is going to reply at Talk:RT (TV network), so perhaps just nominate the category for deletion? -- Sander Säde 07:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the ping, Sander. I think you're right, and agree that would be the best plan. There's a particular discussion that's going to roll to archives in a few hours that I want to add to before that happens, however, and I'm feeling pressed for time that way. If you'd like to go ahead, please feel free: I'll look in and say my piece tomorrow, if you do. Otherwise, I'll try to get to it myself in the next couple of days. It's probably an easy process, but I've never actually even AfD'd anything, and would need to read up before I could post a reasonably well-formed category deletion request.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 07:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

No problem! -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your efforts and agree that "we've been operating in a reasonably collegial way". I look forward to improving the article with your assistance. Ankh. Morpork 10:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Good on you then; an eminently honourable answer. Editing Wikipedia really is a great sort of practice for real life relationships. It's so very easy to feel resentment based on shaky assumptions - both here, and IRL - to feel the other is trying to take advantage, and so tempting to give in to that "fight or flight", "I'm being wronged!" urgency. I do it far more easily than I'd like. I'll be offline for probably 18 hours, now, but also look forward to trying hard to work in mutual respect with an intelligent person of good will, who nevertheless has very different political views. Fun, and no doubt a challenge, too, but of the wholly welcome variety.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 10:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I have a weird sense of humour. Thank you for tolerating my idiosyncrasies. Ankh. Morpork 10:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

You reverted my edit which stated that "The IDF stated that they did not intentionally targeted civilians.". This was an amendment to the previous version of "The IDF denied that they intentionally targeted civilians." which you did not object to. Please explain this. Ankh. Morpork 16:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I'd actually thought previously of marking earlier "The IDF denied ..." version with a citation needed tag. I didn't partly because it would have been easy to interpret that as retaliation for all the tags you placed, and I didn't want introduce that complication. But your edit called my attention to the line, and as I tried to make clear on talk, re the refusal of entry by ambulances, the IDF doesn't respond to reporters' questions about specific allegations or incidents; it only makes general "Here's our ongoing policy" statements. Did you look at my edit summary? If not, please do. I said essentially the same thing there.

So I've expressed my overall view about what happened at Zeitoun, although I've modified it a bit since. But what's your view? Specifically, why do you think the IDF flattened the Samouni houses, and why do you think they blew away the one with all the civilians in it? If we can get out of the weeds, and come to some broad-brush agreement about what happened and why, I think it might make dealing with the details much less contentious.  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 18:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

My views on this topic are indistinct and eminently mutable. I do feel that the IDF explanation, whether general or specific, is relevant to this event, and a source saw fit to include it when detailing these events. Ankh. Morpork 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Oh, of course I agree it's relevant, and should be quoted. My objection is just that I don't see that IDF brass claimed to have adhered to their general policy statement in Zeitoun. I don't believe they've said, e.g. "No, our guys didn't target civilians in Zeitoun." Don't mean to quibble, but the difference seems significant to me.

Re the other, your view about the events, please don't be reticent. It's difficult to talk about particular trees with anyone until you have some agreement as to which forest is under discussion. Besides, I think our views are likely to be more similar than my previous comments may have led you to believe. As I've said, they've have changed. And "besides" again, you're a clever fellow: You must have some idea of an overall explanatory narrative. No penalty, no judgement, not even any debate or answer if you'd rather not. But do tell; I'm all agog to know whether we have the same fundamental idea. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 02:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I hope that you are aware that there is more to Israeli politics and society than a variety of positions evinced regarding the I-P conflict. The respective 'wings' that you referred to will have differing economic, social and religious stances, and contrary to what you insinuate, the right wing' mandate is not a single polemic decrying the peace process and the continued violence. Only a birdbrain would define politicians by their so called 'hawkish' or 'dovish' attitudes. For example the right wing parties of Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas, while both described as right wing, have a markedly different ethos and are occasionally antagonists, and in fact, Yisrael Beiteinu's views converge with Meretz's, a far-left party, with regards to the upcoming amendment to the Tal bill, and not the other rightist organisations. The dominant left wing party, HaAvoda is defined by its social-democratic approach and the social agenda that it promotes. You also intimated that right wing politics and Zionism are somewhat interchangeable, an utter nonsense. Archetypal Zionist figures such as David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir belonged to Mapai, the Worker's party which was the dominant political force, and the precursor to today's Labour party which boasted Rabin and Peres among its ranks. With respect, your nescient comments about Israeli right wing politics rankle, and even more so, your attempts to classify certain editors with a facile 'right-wing' label. Perhaps you have drawn on American right-wing parallels, but your implications that the right wing is a knuckle-dragging, gun-toting Messianic faction are very inaccurate and perhaps, insulting.

With regards to your previous query about my views on Zeitoun, I tried drafting a response but was struggling to articulate my thoughts accurately so self-reverted. An inchoate blabbering is available in your page history if you are still feeling curious. Ankh. Morpork 10:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Let's take the easiest topic first, although it's difficult enough: Yes, I'd seen your comments here about Zeitoun. Any change to a user talk page, even one that's reverted, puts up the orange bar of death. I didn't respond because it wouldn't have seemed quite fair, after you'd reverted. Rather like holding forth about someone's comments after they've asked you, for whatever reason, "Forget I said that, will you?" Too, your remarks seemed very unguarded, almost personal, and I wanted to respect that. I do have a few thoughts about what you wrote that I'd be willing to express, though, if you're interested, and if that would be welcome. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 14:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I have no problems with discussing my comments; after all your questions deserve some kind of response. Ankh. Morpork 15:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Unbelievably 'pro'-Israel. Don't waste your time discussing things with him. ~ Iloveandrea ( talk) 00:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC) reply

WP:POT Ankh. Morpork 00:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC) reply

It's incredible: don't these 'pro'-Israel Wikiwarriors have anything better to do than track people's talk pages?? ~ Iloveandrea ( talk) 00:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Emphasizing parts of another editor's comments can subtlety change the impart of their post, so it's a type of refactoring which, although no doubt done in good faith to be helpful, is inappropriate. Please don't do that. Nobody Ent 11:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, I did intend that to be helpful, and I still think it was, on net. But I naturally see the damaging potential for a subtle shift of emphasis that an action like that can cause, of course. And because our guide to refactoring does say that if another editor objects, the change should be reverted, I'll gladly do so in a moment. I probably will ask Andy to reinstate the highlighting himself, though, with an appropriate "updated" notation, since it's my strong impression that the crux of his complaint is lost in a wall of text. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that his complaint is the only legitimate rationale for the entire discussion even being present at AN/I. But as I say, I will revert. Thanks again for your recent mediation at WQA, btw. Will follow up shortly on your talk, about that. Cheers, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 11:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't know that you need to revert, as that conversation is drawing down. The best way to make your point would likely be your own statement: "The crux of the conversation is...." Nobody Ent 11:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Whatever you like. Feel free to revert it yourself if you change your mind. I agree with you, though, that it's generally a much better practice to introduce one's own statement, as you recommend. I'll ask Andy if he wants to revert, as well, btw. Best, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 11:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't have a problem with the highlighting in this case - though I can see why it might be advisable not to do this sort of thing elsewhere. And yes, the misrepresentation of sources is the most significant thing - possibly if I'd behaved better, this might have got more attention. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep up the good work. Arcandam ( talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply

For Jenin, someone sneaked in a change from "mostly civilians" to "mostly militants" that my source does not support. If it's not on your watch, can you add it in case I miss it again? Ta! ~  Iloveandrea ( talk) 21:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Forget that! Was checking for something more concrete and HRW says mostly militants. Someone has changed the article to reflect it, so error removed. ~  Iloveandrea ( talk) 21:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply

With respect to this - I reiterate that I do not believe he did so. But if you believe that he did, then I do commend your approach. It is a gesture that everyone ought to make with your beliefs, but so few do. Egg Centri c 03:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm grateful to you for saying so; thanks. I really didn't want to do that at all, though. I like Ankh; see above on this talk page... Just wondering: We are talking about the same edit, I suppose? Will have to be offline for an extended period now, however. Best, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 03:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Since you made an impassioned orotund presentation, allow me to sententiously quote from Blackstone: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

When I was younger and was discovering the Wikipedia sweet shop and its weird and wonderful candy, the one page that I particularly savoured was the List of cognitive biases. I found myself nodding at its sagacious truisms and perspicacious insights, and in a manner akin to Jerome K. Jerome, I began to self-diagnose these various ailments. I consciously internalised that I too was susceptible, that my assertive declarations were grounded upon the fragile foundation of human psychology and that nobody, be they an individual or an entire society, could lay sole claim to the elusive truth. As the Great Man wrote in his book Snuff, "We many not be able to answer all questions but we still can question all answers" and I sought to apply this to my understandings, religious upbringing and previous 'self-evident truths.' Which leads me to my editing on Wikipedia; I have always readily acknowledged my personal predilections and countenanced the possibility that they affected my editing, and was comforted to see this doctrine enshrined in the WP:NPOVT. Since I began editing, I can asseverate that my outlook on particular issues perceptibly changed, partially due to an augmented knowledge but also because of a consideration of opposing standpoints. I had already progressed from my childhood callowness of "I am right" to a cynical "Nobody is right", and this now began modulating to an accepting "Everybody is right".

But what bothers me still is that others do not seem to accord equal validity to alternate viewpoints. Certain ideas are immediately disfavoured due to cultural taboos and not because of critical evaluation, and people will stuff viewpoints into neat, constrictive mass-produced boxes, lopping off all awkward protuberances to achieve this. It is my view that the recent racism charge was based upon a reflexive animadversion to any reference of race and conjunctive attributes, and sources be damned! The initial antagonism was based upon the fact that someone had broached this inviolate topic and stomped upon the hallowed grounds of this long-standing bastion of the 'enlightened' and progressive, and consequently must a racist. The subsequent allegations were merely justificatory to this initial assumption and when several people condemned the name AnkhMorpork because of apparent porcine allusions or accused people of misrepresenting a hitherto unseen source from January 2011 (that would be you), it was clear that a confirmation bias was operative and people were seeking to validate their initial premise with scant regard to the cogency of their arguments. I put it to you that all those who alleged misrepresentation would be disinclined to include any mention of this sensitive subject at all, and these perceptions were self-rationalizations that manifested in descrying the supposed flaws of somebody who opined otherwise.

It is pointless to protest to you my innocence or engage in the nigh impossible task of disaffirming this Russell's teapot; instead I desire that you consider that you too are subject to biases, you too should not be enmeshed in the surety of your viewpoint, and perhaps, just perhaps, you could have been mistaken. Ankh. Morpork 01:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I corrected a typo and changed "claimed" to stated in this edit, in addition to a substantive restoration Ankh. Morpork 17:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Very well. I've replied to your e-mail message, btw. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 23:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Suppressed, per policy. Sorry I missed the link earlier. I feel really bad about this, though, and I know far too many people who were abused as kids. When I see someone getting silenced for telling their story - that hurts. Most were silenced for far too long already. I'm really upset about this right now - Alison ^❤ 09:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Sure; thanks, Alison. I also feel pretty upset over this; we're in complete agreement about it. I did just e-mail oversight a few moments ago; I got the "new messages" bar re your post above immediately after hitting "save". Just so you're aware, in that e-mail I wrote, "Admin Alison had dealt with the situation pretty well, but she appears to have missed the fact that the user had created a .png image of his unredacted user page, posted that on an external site, and linked to it from within his unblock request." I'm really sorry to have to tell you that I also recommended that talk page access be revoked, until he promises via e-mail not to reinstate the link. I'm so sorry about all this. I'd also like to see the AN/I thread closed, although I recognise you probably can't do that yourself. Would you have any objection if I did, saying it's being handled via e-mail and oversight? -- OhioStandard ( talk) 09:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Update: I notice he's now saying he didn't know that the link to the unredacted user page would be a problem. Presumably that means he won't link to it again. The GNAA logo is now on his talk, though, and based on his reply to Boing! said Zebedee's decline of his unblock request, it's my impression, without knowing your friend, that he's unlikely to be willing to abide by community standards in the future. I personally think his user page, as edited by you, is okay, although it's not something I'd ever put up, myself. But I doubt the preponderance of opinion will support that the user page is/was okay, and I also doubt that your friend will ever finally accept that. The whole damn thing does sadden me, though. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 09:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I responded on my talk page. Thanks very much for your help. I'll get back with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi there,

I've been swamped and distracted by huge amounts of work and family illness. You generously offered some assistance many months ago and I'd intended to follow through, but never felt I had enough time to deal with the issues involved.

I made some edits to Allen West's page last month, fairly innocuous. They were in the Personal section and I added info about his wife. This included the name her employer (she was identified as a financial analyst), the University which conferred her Phd (K-State), and the fact that as a trustee, noted already on the page, that she was appointed by Rick Scott. I felt all three were germane.

Another editor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Niteshift36 deleted all three edits. These were entirely within Wikipedia policy, he made untrue claims about lack of sourcing, and deleted my edits. I restored part of them, but he simply quickly deleted them again. I tried to engage him in a productive discussion but got nothing but hostility in return, pejoratives and insults. Much of these have been on the Allen West talk page.

I answered his objectives in exhaustive detail, but he simply ignored my thoughts or hurled insults. I requested that we discuss the matter on our talk pages. He simply erased my request from his page. Then I accidentally discovered that he had insulted and questioned my behavior on a COIN page on for-profit prison provider GEO Group. GEO was busted editing negative issues from its own Wikipeda webpage subsequent to a controversy over the sale of the naming rights to the Florida Atlantic University stadium naming rights. I had been invited to participate and left feedback. When I reproached him for that, he contented that because he had no obligation to notify me of his personal questioning of my integrity because I'd previously gone to that page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

I had asked another editor who seemed interested in the subject if he or she might tender a third party assessment of the dispute. He has not answered me. He indicated he might be away from editing for a while because of a non-related dispute in which he or she was involved left bruised feelings.

I'm at a bit of a loss for what to do. I've been entirely civil. I've been indisputably neutral on the Wikipedia subject pages. He wanted the info I posted, and only that info, permanently removed from the West pages which he'd edited heavily before. He confesses to holding a somewhat similar political position. Since the furor over the naming rights has not been resolved, I even posted the reasons the material should be considered. His objection, that the page should be only used for information about West, is debunked by similar pages where others had family info posted. I cited, pasting the material, from the Clarence Thomas page that includes extensive discussion of his wife as an example. Niteshift suggested I should build a page for Angela West.

I wonder if you could take a look and tell me what you think? I don't think I've done anything wrong and only his somewhat unique reasoning could lead him to the conclusions and actions he's taken.

I just notice a moment ago that he removed a link inserted by another to another Wikipedia page from the GEO Group page. I'm finding it more and more difficult to believe he hasn't some sort of a vested interest, however obscure, in this situation.

I looked on his USER page and edits and found he was engaged in a recent war of his choice where the original poster simply left editing, rather than put up with what he termed "Wikibullying." That may be an appropriate characterizaton of what's been going on, I think. Activist ( talk) 01:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Um, not exactly. You've failed to address the issue based on policies, namely why this info about the wife belongs in the husband's bio. Fact is, you haven't "discussed" anything. You've just flooded a lot of info and never addressed the actual issue. Also, if you want to start making allegations about "vested interests", even on talk pages, be aware that 1)BLP applies to talk pages, 2) I am a living person and 3) you'd better bring some proof before shooting off your mouth. Now you're here, canvassing support for something you haven't really addressed in the correct manner. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Can I ask that you sign this edit as the author of such comments (especially in the I-P quagmire) should be readily recognisable. Thank you. Ankh. Morpork 12:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Hmm ... I'm sympathetic to the potential problem, and to your obviously good intentions - not wanting to see edit wars develop over so trivial a change - but I really don't want to set a precedent, either. It seems to me that the template is only used, and only meant to be used in what might be called "competitive" or "disputed" circumstances like !votes, and that if the community expected or wanted editors to sign their addition of the {{ spa}} template that it would automatically add that signature, or at least offer it as an optional parameter.

I say "precedent" because I've never seen anyone sign the additon of that template; not a single time, ever. You're not disputing the appropriateness of the characterisation, are you? Btw, I'm going to have to go offline almost immediately. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 12:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC) reply

You are much more familiar with the Wiki proceedings than myself so I shall defer to your judgement. Ankh. Morpork 13:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Very well; thanks. If you ever see me place such a template that you think is inappropriate, please do let me know. I actually think it wouldn't be a bad idea if the template autosigned, btw, or at least included a timestamp so one could more easily discover who placed it via page history, should any question about its applicability arise. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 13:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC) reply

For your reading pleasure ... Sources:American Legislative Exchange Council. Didn't know if you're a Scotch drinker but the same advice applies:) — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 13:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi, Art! Yes, like MastCell, I do enjoy that inestimable beverage. I appreciate your generosity and careful work, very much; thank you. Nice presentation and formatting, too, besides the research. I'll try to use these sources, of course, but I hope you won't think me a terrible ingrate if I also just candidly mention that there's really no shortage of sources about ALEC: It's almost an embarrassment of riches that way, actually. No, as much as I'm grateful for your effort, sources aren't so much the problem as the group of ardent conservatives camped out at the article who constantly try to whitewash it, in contravention of all our policies, for their own political ends.

Their behaviour there is so extreme and so civilly aggressive that it's almost funny: One editor deleted the word "controversial" as a description of the 2011 Wisconsin State bill pushed through by governor Scott Walker that led to his current recall woes and protest gatherings of 100,000 people in that State alone. If you look at the article in its current state, you'll see that the offending word "controversial" is back in, but has a citation I found to support it. That kind of politically motivated obstructionism is the problem there, not sources, really. While I'm grateful for the sources, truly I am, if you want to affect what the article actually says, you'll need to show up there to become part of the consensus process on its talk page. Thanks again, and hope to see you there. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 17:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I couldn't agree more. The pov pushing obstructionism is pretty blatant and likely to get worse once the IP returns...gets banned and then socks accounts and IPs for a week or two while we all play wack-a-mole...fun, fun. All that crap aside, it has been my, given limited, experience that severe pov pushing can be beaten to death with a large source club, but I take your point that boots on the ground are necessary and will try to throw in this week. Looks like I'm 'a gonna need more whiskey and a rag for my shot-gun. So the baby seal walks into a club... — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 17:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I appreciate your comments, as I do the "baby seal" joke, which I hadn't heard before. A nice "fit" with your previous set up of "a large source club"; actually laughed out loud, very nice. Hope to see you soon. Best, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 18:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi, OhioStandard. I felt as if we were perhaps becoming "friends" or something, but I have to leave Wikipedia, and I have no plans of returning. My friend "Antony-22" has now shown his true hand, and his true heart, and, as I've really known all along, it's a hand and heart laden with malicious intent and prejudice; a prejudice which is now on the march, taking destructive action. Over the weekend he did a mind-boggling hatchet job. For your convenience, I reproduce here my final note to him, from the "Non-helical" talk page:

Antony-22, you have hamstrung and castrated this article. There's nothing left of value, and it no longer serves any purpose. You may actually believe that you have, I think you call it "NPOV", but this is a bias to heavy to be measured. I asked you to take the article down weeks ago, and you insist on leaving it up. For what purpose? You killed it. I'm not coming back to either the article or the talk page. There simply isn't any point. If you have anything to say email me at kb@notahelix.com.

Well, that's it. Nothing more to say. The article is so worthless now, and so pointless, it's beyond not doing any good. It's so stripped of meaning that it can't even do harm. So I'm going to move on, to another venue where a purpose can be served. It's been nice conversing with you. Maybe we can continue someday, in a more favorable setting. Voice of 5-23 ( talk) 12:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi, Ken: I'm sorry you've had such a negative experience here. I'll be very sorely pressed for time over the next couple of weeks, but I'm going to take a moment to respond with a quick message via the Wikipedia user e-mail interface, sometime within the next hour. Cheers, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 13:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the email. Between your comments and what I'd already seen online, I'm becoming more and more convinced that this username is another username's sock, but the connection to NoCal100 is tenuous enough that I'm hesitant to make a WP:DUCK block. Therefore, I want to start an SPI, since CU will reveal far more if you have a specific sockmaster in mind, and I believe that we have enough evidence to qualify for CU. What username would you prefer me to use as the sockmaster when I file the SPI? Feel free to email your response if you're hesitant to have it publicly visible. Nyttend ( talk) 02:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks, and I agree. Will respond via e-mail momentarily. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 03:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Your point about needing to provide too much evidence on-wiki to qualify for CU is good. Despite what you think of me, I'm not amazingly familiar with SPI; I've only filed a few in my 6 years of WP experience, and I very rarely do anything over there with cases that others have filed. Why don't you email the checkusers (telling them that it was my idea for you to do this), say that you have evidence that you'd prefer to keep private, and then ask for some guidance on how much to reveal on-wiki? I can't really imagine people complaining at you for taking such a course of action. Nyttend ( talk) 04:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Sure, that sound fine, perhaps the best plan. I appreciate your willingness to allow me to say you approve, too. I suppose I'm too cautious about dealing with SPI after seeing this sprawling debacle. That clerk is still active, s/he just dropped out of the thread and quit editing for a week or so until things quieted down, after it became obvious others wanted the gratuitous accusation retracted. Never an apology to the user, never a retraction, despite the overwhelming opinion that one was due. I've seen one other admin make similarly unwarranted accusations there, too. No idea why anyone should feel offended at being the subject of an SPI, though, given the tremendous problem we have with socks. Thanks again; I'll let you know what eventuates. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 05:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC) reply

PS - This is going to have to wait until tomorrow, now. I won't forget, though, and thanks again. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 07:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I was reading your ANI post and was wondering what kind of behaviour you were referring to. I'm also interested what you were implying about SPI in this edit. I'm just curious; might help me recognise and deal with suspicious behaviour in future. Feel free to email me if you prefer. Many thanks Basalisk  ^{inspect damage}⁄ _berate 03:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I've replied via e-mail. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 12:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC) reply

...for your comment Ohio. I have to admit it's easier to accept criticism when the criticism is flawless, level headed, and devoid of ulterior motive.

Anyway, I hope your intervention has helped take the heat out of the debate - it seems to have been successful so far. See you at WT:SPI. Oncenawhile ( talk) 07:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply

If you have an evidence file an SPI until it was determined that user a sock you have to WP:AGF also such edits summary could be considered violation of WP:NPA.-- Shrike ( talk) 10:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Shrike, you engage in your hobby of befriending utterly obvious socks who share your POV so very often that it's becoming very, very hard for your fellow editors to continue to assume good faith on your part in this regard. You've been editing for at least six years, now, and you're plenty experienced enough to recognise glaringly obvious socks. It both diminishes your standing and insults your fellow editors when you treat ridiculously obvious socks as if they were legitimate new editors, when you should be reverting them, instead.

You've been told by multiple editors to stop doing this, and you just keep right on doing the same thing. In the jurisprudence of most countries there's a principle which says that whoever aids or abets someone else's crimes is is punishable just as if she had committed them herself. I suggest you consider that very carefully before you assist another obvious sock or try to prevent your fellow editors from discussing their socking; you may find that contributors here will be willing to uphold this principle with respect to our own community's rules. You owe me an apology for the last time you did this, by the way, as you do for this new instance, as well. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 11:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Again file an WP:SPI if you have a case.The new user have asked me advice I contrary to you WP:AGF and don't WP:BITE new users.Moreover your edit on the talk page of Palestinian people was a violation of talk page guidelines as it was not about this article at all.Trowing accusations about users without filing a case is a violation of WP:NPA-- Shrike ( talk) 11:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply

You're welcome to visit my talk page for any other reason, but do not come here with comments like this again. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 12:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Ohiostandard, please accept my sincere thanks for your kind words on my talk page. While I agree with what you said, I have little interest in refighting the last war. What's done is done. Notwithstanding the determined and harshly expressed opposition from some quarters, at the end of the day I must accept personal responsibility for the RfA's failure. If I had simply endured the harsher comments in silence, and without protest, reaction or answer of any kind, during the final two days, I suspect that the RfA would have succeeded with between the mid-70s and low-80s as a percentage of the !vote.

It's important to maintain perspective in situations such as this. While the result was, of course, disappointing, it does not rise to the level of tragedy. No one died, no one went to prison, and there are still many Wikipedia articles of interest which are yet to be written or require thorough editing.

Thank you, once again, for taking time to offer your consolation. Warm regards, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 15:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply

P.S. I hope we have occasion to work on an article or two of mutual interest in the near future. Cheers. DL1

User talk:Minphie#Just a reminder, whatever you do — Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 09:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Needle_Exchange_Programme:Talk Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 03:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Needle exchange programme

Please add any relevant thoughts or comments. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 19:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I was unable to resist making an edit the other day, and skimmed my talk page - I can honestly say that kittens or no, your kind words put a smile on my face, again, all these years later. I do wish that I had shown my appreciation better when you left the message for me. I noticed that you haven't edited recently ( yes, I peeked at your contribs ), I trust that you are doing well and that whatever you are doing is bringing you joy and happy returns. u n☯ mi 15:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao ^{Che dicono a Signa?} _{Lo dicono a Signa.} 11:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Good morning.
We haven't talked for a long time. My well wishes were always with you as I returned to our chat often.
User:Bkpsusmitaa/Violent_verses_of_the_Quran
If you are willing to check the article, I would submit it for review.
Bkpsusmitaa ( talk) 03:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Please note that I now edit the encyclopedia only occasionally, so I typically don't respond to comments left here in anything like a remotely timely manner. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 06:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Nice to see you're still alive, if not very active here. Cheers! Activist ( talk) 10:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much. I don't seem to have the monumental degree of patience that's so requisite for anyone who tries in good faith and with scrupulous honesty to contribute to this beautiful project much, anymore, but I sincerely appreciate your kind notice, above.

I'd also like to LYK that I recognize you as a wholly honorable person of good will, despite our probably irreconcilable perspective on the absolutely heartbreaking clusterf**k of hatred that is I/P politics.

Beyond that, all I can really usefully say, is that I miss my favorite I/P counterpart, AnkhMorpork, a close wiki-friend ( despite our radically opposing views ) and both hope he's okay,and wish him every good thing...

Seriously, now: As with 'Ankh', I honor your own ability to recognize the humanity, sincerity, and good will of people whose views oppose your own ...

And likewise to eschew the sinister temptation ( so ubiquitously indulged in, these recent years ) of demonizing people who, in good faith, cannot agree with your own interpretation of events and history. Peace and blessing upon you, my friend.

-- OhioStandard ( talk) 13:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Just saw you left a note for me and it led me to read your Talk page which is almost entirely 12 years old. If you haven't seen this, you might find it interesting. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/haaretz-today/2023-11-20/ty-article/.highlight/on-october-7-sexism-in-israels-military-turned-lethal/0000018b-ee5b-ddc3-afdb-fe5b25be0000 Activist ( talk) 00:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Utterly heartbreaking. To me the conclusion seems unavoidable that Israeli high command must have known the attack was imminent, but judged the loss of Israeli lives a tolerable sacrifice for the optics needed in U.S. & Europe to station troops in Gaza permanently, and more importantly to them, to really, wipe out Hamas at last. No rancor at all intended or felt, in saying so, of course; many, many other nations have made this kind of decision, clearly. Geopolitics is the most brutally obscene and ugly business, *everywhere* in the world, my native country notwithstanding.

I think women and especially mothers would do better at running or hopefully avoiding wars. Take the machismo and deadly chest-thumping animosity out of the equation. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 14:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply