User talk:Marskell/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 via SlimVirgin's talk page 1.1 Defending Wagon and Marskell -alternately 2 Toronto 3 Re: Global city 4 Hist. Assn 5 My RfA (again) 6 Apologies from this (barely human) primate 7 Bentham 8 Re: my Rfa 9 barnstar 10 Persecution 11 Religion in Israel 12 spurious commas 13 On the off-chance that you are interested: 14 Sequel Trilogy 15 Thank you -- re:Historical Association 16 Thanks for your support on my RfA! 17 Closing AfDs 18 Margaret Turnbull 19 Thanks 20 Thanks frome me too 21 Talk:George W. Bush 22 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2 23 Un question 24 RfC (it huffs and it puffs...) 25 Please refrain

[edit] via SlimVirgin's talk page

I will support an RfAr against this user if need be. I long thought good faith but have since realized (or at least consider) otherwise. When he is annoyed he acts annoyed—unilaterally and without regard to consensus. Marskell 00:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Marskell, you and Gordon both continue to misuse the term "consensus". A three-to-one vote is not a vote that can be called "consensus". This already came up before on teh Terri Schiavo article a while ago when Gordon tried to call a 4-2 vote (then turned to a 4-3 vote) to be "consensus". He complained to an admin or someone and they explained that for a vote to qualify as "consensus", it would need dozens of votes and the result would have to be overwhelmingly to one side's favor. So, I haven't acted "without regard to consensus", because there have been no votes around Terri Schiavo that got consensus (other than the FA nomination got consensus that the article should not get FA status and that the article was too long). And if you have a dispute with me, for example thinking that I violated consensus, you need to bring it to me first before you go to arbcom. You've said nothing to me about this. ever. FuelWagon 04:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

When I said I would support Slim I meant in an ancillary way—I do not intend to start anything myself. Why? Your removal of the pic(s) struck me as bad faith which I hinted at on the page. It had sat there for some time and while you say you "never liked the photo," you didn't do anything about it before. Instead you removed while in the midst of a longer spat with Gordon. It struck me as clearly retaliatory. Further, while I know he is frustrating, you're answers to him have simply become rude ("I answered your irrelevant question" etc.). As I said to Slim, when you're annoyed you act annoyed. It was for this reason I stopped by your user page last night and got diverted to the question of Talk page removals.

As I said, you were misinterpreting general comments on why people find removals wrong with criticism of yourself. I have no idea of whether you specifically removed criticism, as I only noticed five or six sections were gone but not which ones. As the saying goes (and to be a touch melodramatic) the appearance of conflict-of-interest is conflict-of-interest. Your motives may be absolutely sound but necessarily people will interpret removing sections as hiding things. That's all I was saying. Very clearly in my posts to you I did not accuse—I simply observed what the feeling is toward user talk pages and thus your final post to me on the subject also struck me as rude.

As for consensus, on any given page at best there is usually five or six editors actively involved. An informal five-to-one on talk strikes me as as close to consensus as you can get. Perhaps "general feeling" rather than consensus; when the general feeling doesn't go your way you become needlessly snippy (see for instance your reply to Ann at 23:05, 27 September 2005).

Finally, obviously, I won't be posting on your user talk page any longer given that you delete within minutes apparently but will respond to any of your questions here. Marskell 11:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I ask Gordon to show me one wikipedia biographical article that contains a picture of someone's gravestone. He asks me who else had congressional intervention. His question was irrelevant. I'm sorry, but there's no other word. One has nothing to do with the other. And he kept bringing it up as if it was relevant. Calling an edit "pov" is not an insult if it is true. Calling something "irrelevant" isn't an insult either if it is true. And Gordon's question had nothing to do with the gravestone.

As for voting, "consensus" is something like dozens of editors voting with a landslide of votes going one way. That is "consensus". You can get consensus when you file an article RfC if enough editors show up, or you can see it in Articles for Deletion when a specific article is recommended for deletion, or you can see it when someone is nominated for admin or similar positions. 4 to 1 is not consensus. And Gordon has already tried to call 4-2 consensus and was finally told by someone that it wasn't. So, this is an running dispute with Gordon. He gets a "vote" on the talk page and gets 4-2 in his favor and then announces that he has "consensus" and no one can edit against him without violating "consensus". 4-1 isn't consensus.

4-1 means the editors involved have voted a certain way, and the single editor will clearly have a problem getting his edits to stick in the article, but that doesn't mean he must stop editing, and it doesn't mean he must stop trying to find compromise edits that may work, and it doesn't mean he must stop advocating for what he believes to be the right thing for the article. At some point, the lone editor will either change people's mind with a compromise or not. If not, the editor will either keep trying to push his version or stop. If he keeps pushing, then obviously the dispute needs resolution. I continued to push for what I thought was best for the article, and when it became clear that no compromise would be found, I stopped pushing. You can expect no better of anyone. Contrast this to Gordon who has repeatedly pushed until the page gets locked, agreeed to limit his edits to 5 a day, then performs 24 edits, embeds his URL's after the overwhelming majority says to delete them. GOrdon doesn't know when to stop.

As for my talk page, you keep saying that you're only talking about "general coments", but you obviously have some specific dispute with me, since you keep bringing it up. You announced on my talk page "conversation over". If a conversation is over, I delete it. If it is resolved, I generally don't keep it around. Clearly you don't like this approach, and clearly you were offended by me deleting the thread on my talk page after you announced it was "over". So, while you say it was only general commentary, its become personal to you. No insult was intended by deleting the thread. If it's concluded I delete it. As for general comments about policy or whatever and talk pages, I don't think any were broken. I keep disputes around until they are resolved. That's how I keep track of stuff. So I don't think general comments are going to establish anything other than that we handle our talk pages differently, and neither way is wrong. If, on the other hand, you want to talk about your personal reaction to something I said or to me deleting the thread after you declared it "over", then lets talk. FuelWagon 16:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"I answered your irrelevant question" is rude in the same way "I marked your awful paper" is rude. Perhaps the question is irrelevant; perhaps the paper is awful—that doesn't justify being snide. And you are snide with Gordon—increasingly so. He's obsessed but he's never mean. You haven't rebutted the idea that suddenly deciding no pics were needed after a month-and-a-half of their being there was essentially retaliatory.

4-1 to one is not consensus, agreed. "Dozens of editors voting with a landslide of votes going one way" is not consensus either. A dozen editors, say 10-2 delete, is consensus enough to close a VfD.

Regarding talk, I have no specific dispute with you. It's just pointless to leave comments on your page when they get deleted immediately. I've stopped over "closed" threads and had people stop here over the same; that's part of the purpose of user talk. And "you don't get it" was unnecessary. I get perfectly your logic (and I actually agree to some extent) and I get perfectly what my observation to you was. And yes it was a general comment. That's all. Marskell 16:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"Irrelevant" is functionally descriptive the way "red herring", "bifurcation", or "no true scotsman" describes various types of logical fallacies. "Awful" is a subjective interpretation. Anyone can look at Gordon's question, apply the rules of logcial argument, and see it was irrelevant. As to whether I'm snide or Gordon's mean, that's subjective. I will point out that Gordon has a rather frequent habit of declaring that I've violated "policy" when I've done no such thing (he's started subsections on the talk page and recently started subsections on Jimbo Wales talk page saying "FuelWagon violated policy" or some such thing), that he recently threatend "world war III" (his words, not mine) if anyone modified the article against his liking, and similar actions which one may or may not associate with being snide or mean. In any event, he can dish it out in his own way. FuelWagon 18:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant and awful are both functionally descriptive—most adjectives are—as opposed to your other examples which are essentially denotative. Red herring does not describe a logical fallacy—it is a logical fallacy. And, of course, pedantic linguistic tangents are good examples of red herrings. I did not say your sentence was nonsensical, ungrammatical or even untrue—I said it was rude. That you are being snide with Gordon is indeed my POV and you are saying nothing which disproves that. Marskell 19:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, in the sentence "I've stopped over "closed" threads and had people stop here over the same", what do you mean by "stop"? FuelWagon 19:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Stopped over as in noticed, read and commented upon. A few people leaving messages here have left them under threads on the same topic even though not initally involved. Marskell 19:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Defending Wagon and Marskell -alternately

On many points, Marskell, you are right, but on a few I will defend wagon -in no particular order: "Gordon tried to call a 4-2 vote (then turned to a 4-3 vote) to be "consensus"." OK, it was not concensus, but it was a "vote," and a grammar mistake on my part. Pedantics. Terms. I learn something new everyday -and won that vote -narrowly. "It [Wagon removing pics, late in the game] struck me as clearly retaliatory." Maybe, but perhaps he really did think the pic looked out-of-place -and was merely slow to speak, as he said. "An informal five-to-one on talk strikes me as close to consensus as you can get." Correct! "...I won't be posting on your user talk page any longer given that you delete within minutes ..." Wagon really does read (and quickly deletes) all the posts to his talk page and consider them -even if he quite disagrees. This is more than I can say for Calton -who does not participate in talks or argue his case but makes hit-and-run edits with brief, cryptic edit comments. "I ask Gordon to show me one wikipedia biographical article that contains a picture of someone's gravestone. He asks me who else had congressional intervention. His question was irrelevant." FALSE! That is the point: Terri Schiavo is the ONLY person to have EVERY gotten intervention by Pope, President, Governor, AND Congress -and widespread media attention to boot. She is very noteworthy. "4 to 1 is not consensus." OK, true enough Wagon, but FIVE-to-ONE is: #1: Neutrality placed the photo. #2: I REplaced his Fair Use photo with my GFDL one (which was DIFFICULT to take, as it involved travel to another planet, call Planet Pinellas, where we starve earthlings) #3 was Marskell who removed one but kept two of my photos. #4 Was Mark, aka Raul654, the FA-editor, and #5 was Ann Heneghan -FIVE to one is concensus -even if FOUR to one is not! Accept the fates of concensus, Wagon. "It's just pointless to leave comments on your page when they get deleted immediately." No, Marskell. Wagon, for all his hard-headed-ness, reads his comments -and then deleted them, often noting in edit comments to the effect that my posts were noted and reviewed -and Wagon is somewhat open to reason (sometimes it take a 5-1 whacking or something) -compare again to Calton, who would still be causing trouble had the page not locked. Calton -yet another POV-pusher, who claimed one paragraph belonged in the legal section -why did he single out one little paragraph? The one the had events documented by my links? By the way, links to The Register ARE notable: Proof: They are cited elsewhere on the web by MANY folk. "Anyone can look at Gordon's question, apply the rules of logical argument, and see it was irrelevant." No -the fact that Terri got special attention from the pope, president, governor, congress, press, etc!!! WAS the logic: She was more notable than, say, Jim Morrison, no offense against him -He is still quite notable, though not as much. "recently started subsections on Jimbo Wales talk page saying "FuelWagon violated policy"" Yes, you did: You refused to allow the use of the copyright template, but I just as quickly admitted I was wrong when Angela, a steward, I think, said the template wasn't necessary if I was an editor who had posted the photo, thus documenting the copyright thing. "that he recently threatend "world war III" (his words, not mine) if anyone modified the article against his liking" No! I only threatened WWIII here, last paragraph end of 1st sentence if you removed the hidden comments about The Register links -I admit that it was not my place to post them for public view, but removing them from hidden comments is -well -going too far. Hidden comments are for disputed material to document it. I assert that use of The Register links are disputed, as I myself dispute them. Be glad that I don't post the links and simply say that it is OK since they are reliable and -as proof -refer to other pages that use The Register as a source: I am "flexible" and willing to compromise. "A few people leaving messages here have left them under threads on the same topic even though not initially involved." Like ME -but I hope my views are considered.--GordonWatts 03:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto

I've left the anon a warning, if they continue to readd this information without explanation I will block them. - SimonP 00:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Global city

Hello again! I hope you're well. First of all; thanks for your ongoing brokerage during this discussion. We – I – appreciate your efforts!

As well, I've noticed you're involvement with N. in collating and producing related facts and figures; this is a great!

Similarly, I too have been working with him on collating information; you may or may not be aware of this proposed approach I'm advocating (this is the final section I'm working on), but I think it will dually address concerns about the exclusivity of the 'GaWC' list, yet provide users information to access about other noteworthy cities. Note, though, that I'm advocating for the inclusion of the entire section (with links, etc.) and not yet as a table: the table proposed is comparing and ranking different data/information (e.g., population and transit usage), not comparing like data (e.g., two global city lists). Apples with apples, not oranges. Make sense?

Also, were you able to peruse or comment on my prior text edition to the article (now in your archive)?

Whatyathink? Comments? I'd really like to get your feedback. Please get back to me, either here on my talk page. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 16:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I hope you're well. Thanks for your recent reply; I understand completely. I've been working on some other things too and have also been away.

By the way: I created a list of notable museums and galleries around the world, which appears in the Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac 2005; these are the sorts of lists and links (with links to) which can complement – and dually address – concerns regarding the global city article. I'll continue on this front and will work on similar lists. Thoughts? Thanks again for your help! E Pluribus Anthony 09:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hist. Assn

Thank yoU!

Joaquin Murietta 05:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA (again)

Thank you for your change of vote to support. However, it came after the time period ended, and probably will not count. Thanks anyway. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies from this (barely human) primate

• A discussion between primates (Oct 6 - 10 2005)

[edit] Bentham

You deleted eccentric as POV, not sure thats reasonable. Eccentricity in the wealthy in Britain has quite a history as an (often deliberate) cultural choice. And the terms of his will were pretty eccentric on any terms. Justinc 23:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: my Rfa

Thanks for your vote! Please let me know if I can help out in the future. Karmafist 14:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] barnstar

Aw shucks! Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persecution

Oh, sorry, Marskell. Do by all means continue to hang around, as you're being very helpful. The problem with the other person is that he tends to revert, revert regardless of what version he's reverting to, good or bad, so long as it isn't mine, which is what I assumed had happened again. I tried to tidy the intro slightly, and also tried to copy edit, but it's hard to know what to do to improve it. Historical persecution by Christians isn't much better, and I just glanced at Historical persecution by Muslims and noticed they're using a more sensible definition of persecution (e.g, murder, rape etc), whereas the Christian one allows for the inclusion of Wiccans who feel hard done by in Canada. I left a comment about that on Talk:Historical persecution by Muslims if you're interested. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religion in Israel

Thanks. I really appreciate what you've done to try to de-escalate things, but the article as it stood was sorely deficient. It still needs a lot of work, and, of course, a particular editor is rather intent on inserting his POV into it (as you've already seen), but still, I think it's a good start. I've invited other editors who might be knowledgeable on the subject to help out as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I notice he didn't invite me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

He's smiling but he's not denying it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] spurious commas

Glad you found "rm spurious commas" amusing. It's true; recalcitrant semi-colons are bad as well; but I don't understand what the big deal is with specious question marks??? ;) ... Usually I'd just leave a summary of "gr" or "punct" for that sort of edit, but those particular 2 commas were so obviously out of place that I felt the need to wield the Spurious Sword of Deletion. Colin M. 00:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On the off-chance that you are interested:

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Canadian Wikipedian Expatriates for instructions.--Rmky87 01:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sequel Trilogy

I am well aware of the "no original research" rule. And... I am trying to avoid it in the article. The timeline is a very reliable source, and I am going to email the guy and ask him how he determined the dates for when the trilogy was to take place. The Wookieepedian 15:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not attempting to "create" a plot summary. What I have done on that page is just put what has been confirmed, or what Lucas said he wanted to do with the trilogy. That is not original research, and I don't see where you see it is. The Wookieepedian 15:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• "The trilogy...would have picked up 59 years after the prequel trilogy and 36 years after the original trilogy."

I explained how I determined this. Somewhere, I'm not sure yet, Lucas made the comment of when the series would take place. The author of the timeline doesn't just make up dates. He should be able to tell me the source. When I get it, I'll put itm on the page.

• "The sequel trilogy was to feature Luke as a Jedi Master in his sixties passing on the excalibur to the next young hope."

This was actually said by Lucas in the 1983 Time magazine article.

Did Lucas say either of these two things? If so, where can they be verified? If not, they should be removed or better qualified.

I'm working on the sources.

And why do we a list of movie names devoid of content except to say they were cancelled? Did he claim he planned to make nine? Marskell 16:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, he did, multiple times. He even wrote it in a foreward to an EU book. He, as well as many of his co-workers have stated many times pre-1995 of his plans to make these, and his more recent comments are merely cover-ups. The Wookieepedian 16:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you -- re:Historical Association

Thank you for following up with the AfD removal notice [1] - Last night I finally saw your suggestion that I follow up. My bad. Finally figured out the intricacies of the watch list button. Thank you! Joaquin Murietta 17:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support on my RfA!

Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closing AfDs

You left a message for me regarding closing AfDs that I voted in.

I've never closed an AfD discussion, much less one I've voted in, but two things are worth mentioning. If the article hasn't been closed and is still tagged with the deletion notice, feel free to add your comments and votes. If the result is very clear, then anyone can close the AfD, even those who've voted in it, but if requires judgement, or if there is potential for conflict of interest, someone who hasn't voted in it should do it. There are no hard and fast rules, but people get a virtual lashing when they go outside these general bounds. Unfocused 14:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Margaret Turnbull

You had the Margaret Turnbull page speedy deleted and I was curious why, as "re-post" is not a speedy deletion criteria (as near as I can tell). As I understand it, editors should be cautious about re-posts after a delete (or second AfD noms after a keep). Please note also it was deleted on a 2-1 vote, which is hardly overwhelming. Marskell 17:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. If you want the article back, list it on WP:VFU; don't just submit it again. —Cryptic (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I see--sorry, browsed the article rather than the general rules. What's the greater evil, red links or re-posts? This name is red-linked in at least four spots. If someone else came along and added the article, unaware of the AfD, would it be speedied immediately? Marskell 17:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Usually articles are orphaned when they're deleted via afd, so redlinks shouldn't be an issue. Re-creation by independent sources can be a sign that an article is, in fact, needed, though this argument doesn't seem to hold much weight on VFU. (See, for example, the tortured history of Digg, which went through at least three vfus.) The low turnout may well be a more compelling argument, however, so I encourage you to list it. I don't have any interest one way or the other on the article - I just noticed it show up as a new page on my watchlist. —Cryptic (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just wanted to let you know I responded to you on my talk page, and to thank you for the advice. Jarandhel (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks frome me too

I also left you a response on my talk pageSerendipodous 22:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:George W. Bush

I'm curious first, how you locked George Bush but the page got anon edits immediately. Was it tagged as locked without actually being locked?

Also, the idea that I suggested about locking pages in general against anon edits I don't think should just get lost in the talk shuffle. It's a good idea. It would save time for admins and it would make it more likely that the incidental browser gets the page rather than vandalism. Where should it be brought it up? Marskell 00:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes that was a bit strange, when I have a moment I will have to review the protection logs on this article; hopefully it was a human error and not a glitch.

New features can be requested at Wikipedia:Feature_request, but a suggested I made on the 12th of October is still pending a response. Once Durin or RobyWayne have an opportunity to compile some visuals I am going to bring this before the developers once again for consideration. It appears that User:Kizzle had brought up the concept of "semi-protection" (editing restricted only to registered accounts which have existed for a specified number of days, the same way page moves are restricted) at the Wikipedia:Village pump once before, and it received a good deal of support from the other admins, but in the end only a developer can add these features. Hall Monitor 16:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing the protection log for George W. Bush, I now understand why anons were able to vandalise the page while it was "protected". The article was initially only protected against moves but not editing -- the Wikipedia interface does not really differentiate between edit-protection or move-protection; a tab atop each article either says "protect" or "unprotect" in order to toggle the protection status. Only after I unprotected and then fully reprotected the article did it disallow changes from regular or anonymous editors. Hall Monitor 22:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2

Hi. I noticed that you mentioned in your response that you believe that my attempts at dispute resolution were inadequate. When I initially wrote up the RfC, my description wasn't as detailed as it should have been. If you wouldn't mind, could you take another look. Also, please keep in mind that 7 editors have now certified the basis for this RfC. As this is not simply a dispute between FuelWagon and myself, I believe that the combined dispute resolution attempts were more than adequate. Thank you for listening. Carbonite | Talk 13:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Un question

You noted on Requests for adminship that someone suggested checkuser be merged there? What page does "checkuser" refer to? Note, this a "there is no such thing as stupid question" question. I was just curious. Marskell 00:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You can find a description at m:Checkuser, but the short version is it allows you to find the IP of a logged-in user. And please do ask, after all providing information is what we're here for. (The section has been merged now by the way, and the policy is linked at the bottom of the RfA page). --fvw* 00:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Read it and I think I understand. I suspected this was essentially what it was for just wondering which other page you were referring to in terms of merge. And umm, sorry, about to go to the RfA page and oppose both nominations. It sets up two-tier adminship. Make it part and parcel of adminship, bureaucratship or stewardship or not. Why a seperate vote for a seperate power? A not unimportant one incidentally. I've often thought that the bureaucrat position didn't really entail that much extra. Perhaps this could be incorporated. It should be incorporated into something at least and not voted on as a seperate topic. Thanks for the quick response! Marskell 00:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there has been talk of combining it with the bureaucrat function, though there are some differences, as this requires a certain amount of technical knowledge where bureaucratship doesn't. If this is going to be part of bureacrat duties it's probably going to involve a reaffirmation of all the bureaucrats. Anyway, the current policy isn't meant to be the final thing, this is just a stop-gap measure to deal with the current vandals. --fvw* 00:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC (it huffs and it puffs...)

...but it doesn't really do anything. I've commented on your RfC, and I think adaquately descriped my involvement and it's occured to me that RfC's of this sort really accomplish little.

Well, an RfC basically allows both sides to gripe at each other, and get it out of their system. That may or may not resolve anything. It also allows neutral editors to come in and offer comments, and that may or may not resolve anything. But yeah, in the end, an RfC does nothing but generate comments. And yet, Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and several other editors were involved in an edit war on the Wikipedia:Request for comments over whether or not an RfC should be taken "lightly" or not. for example. Personally, I think it's a scare paragraph and tried to get it removed.

It's actually interesting that Carbonite says on his RfC against me

FuelWagon has stated several times that I "threatened" him with this RfC. However, given his extensive editing of the RfC policy page, he's well aware that RfCs are not a punitive measure. I have no intention of using this RfC as anything other than a means to obtain community input.

But it was me giving that very same community input that caused him to threaten to RfC me in the first place [2].

Could you tell me why you decided to comment on this old RfC that's been inactive for weeks? It's especially puzzling that the entire comment is essentially a rant against me and other editors that disagree with you at Terrorism. You even admit in the comment that "I didn't get involved in the Terrorism article until October 12th, after the incidents above had already occurred."

Apparently, I didn't give him the kind of "community input" that he wanted, so he decided to get some "community input" on me. Such is the ways of RfC's around here.

In any event, in regard to your yes/no question proposal, I think I'll pass. I've already admitted I lost my cool, and SlimVirgin is asking for gaurantees while endorsing Bishonen's comment that was highly critical of me. I have no reason to believe that she ever intends to ever admit any wrongdoing on any of these issues nor do I have any reason to believe she will ever bury the hatchet (She has demonstrated she will do the opposite in the past).

If you have some questions for me, I may be able to answer them for you. FuelWagon 02:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please refrain

From further vandalisation of antipolonism page. Thank you. --Molobo 11:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but so far you are deleting info from several scientific resources (including Polish Encyclopedia) in order to push your personal beliefs.--Molobo 11:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"and neither is an academic looking for a catchy book title." Not only your edit vandalised info from scholary resources it is also wrong as they are several works that research the existance of Polish Black Legend, not one. --Molobo 11:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"What are you talking about deleted "scientific" references? " Please point me to my statement of "scientific" references".I do not recall posting this words. You must confuse me with somebody. "And get off the POV horse" Please conduct the discussion in polite manner in future. "your work on this page is a case study in POV pushing" Please refrain from personal attacks in the future.You may also know that I only put information confirmed by press, or scholary works.I stick to the rule that Wiki is not an original research. I suggest you do the same, in relation to your claims that you can put things you have observed yourself.This a violation of Wiki policy Marskell and I hope you will stop it. "I'm not pushing my personal beliefs. I'm trying to remove qualify an unsourced comment from the intro." You are pushing your POV that Polish Black Legend doesn't exist which you admitted on the talk page.Polish black legend is mentioned in Polish Encyclopedia under the subject "Antypolonizm" and is studied in book by Dariusz Łukasiewicz "Czarna legenda Polski - obraz Polski i Polaków w Prusach 1772-1815". --Molobo 11:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)