User:SomeHuman/Sandbox3


 * I had assumed good faith (and in general still do, and I do not consider you as a sort of enemy either), but I did prove more of the POV sort than I find acceptable for an administrator. See Talk:Belgium, User Talk:SomeHuman, and most directly and conclusively in this part of Talk:Belgium including your deliberate insert of doubt-casting wordings against all uncontested facts and sources. And in which I dared you to try to show any of my edits to have been a breach of NPOV, after your repeated unargumented accusations of my editing being "clearly POV" – needless to say, that you failed even to attempt such; just as you failed to even attempt counter-argumenting or disproving my arguments (which I always presented) for any of the by Vb or you disputed edits, but still claiming those to be POV. Q.E.D.
 * Apparently, Marskell has (and I hope, soon will have had) a false understanding of what WP:NPOV means, though I tried to explain it on the Talk:Belgium page on 2007-07-08 01:47, . But what he did in some edits (like [ this]), was not even trying to let WP show a neutral position regardless of the notability and weight of sources (according to Marskells misconcept of WP:NPOV), but clearly against both neutrality and NPOV a deliberate introduction of straightforward POV. Marskell, as always without any arguments, only claims that he has no POV on this, as he always claimed my edits to be POV, and never suggested such of Vb's edits. Just one example: against Vb's awareness, against facts, against sources, and against my comments, letting the article state that Belgium is a 'bilingual' country, whereas that article elsewhere (apart for a person being able to speak two languages) consistently uses that term for an area where individuals speak one or two of the for that entire area's two (official) languages, and whereas the only other and disputable interpretation of 'bilingual' is impossible because Belgium does not have two but three official languages in three distinct areas, and while Vb was repeatedly reintroducing that misconception that is a wellknown deliberate bias by Belgian French-speakers presenting Belgium towards the outer world - falsely suggesting that the once officially unilingual French-language Belgium still recognizes French all over the country. Marskell never found it necessary to copyedit that clearly false and unsourced statement, but did copyedit everything Vb called POV - except the table. I had never accused Marskell to be POV because of his claim on the talk page of the table to be 'gibberish', even though that follows as always exactly Vb's claim – although Vb, regardless his denial, understands very well that the table is informative and undeniably neutral (and of course NPOV). If I would not understand a table, I would ask for information and try to make clear what I do not understand about it, hoping to present things more clearly; unlike Vb, I would not repeatedly eliminate what I pretend not to understand. I have no problem with Marskell or Vb having a POV, as I expect no-one to have a problem with me having POVs; but I do not let the result of my article edits show my POVs, one can only assume those based on the article history and from comments on talk pages.
 * At least on one matter, Marskell and I agree: the article is indeed still of FA quality, and if disputes would further continue between Vb and me, well... I'm just sorry that Marskell has supported Vb's viewpoint so clearly, whereas the latter stood alone before and otherwise still. And Vb's inexhaustive forum shopping is not encourageing either. I don't mind spending some time editing and looking for sources, but if each even well-sourced element is disputed, and then requires not just once but three to five times repeating the same in different sections of a talk page, and I have to spend time to one FAR review after another, what kind of contributors will Wikipedia retain? I don't mind a dispute as the latest one on the 'Belgium' talk page, moreover as I can live with whatever the outcome might be, and as either option would be acceptable for the article's FA status once consensus would be reached, but I find it annoying that for instance in this scrollbox dispute (in which I enthousiastically support Vb's latest contribution) one does not want to give readers just a week to assess where consensus may be found, or that the guys from what is named WikiProject:Belgium with whom I had clashed a good while ago don't appear to have spotted anything (Vb/me, FARs) that went on...
 * — SomeHuman 28 Jul2007 05:53 (UTC)