User talk:Arzel/archive 1

Bold text== Mediator available == Don't know if you noticed, but WGFinley offered to mediate our case and so far, 7 out of 12 editors have signified agreement here. If you have any reservations about him, I understand - I believe the decision needs to be unanimous - but if you're willing, assigning a mediator this way will considerably faster as AGK indicated here it may take two to three weeks otherwise. Thanks for checking it out. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with WGFinley, he seems to be a reasonable choice. Arzel (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks! AzureCitizen (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor Mediation
Greetings!

I have agreed to mediate the Restoring Honor case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Meg Whitman
My edits were in good faith. No POV was added. Tightened lede and copy edited over weighted section as discussed on talk page. Consensus was followed. As a major contributer to the article and member of project Biography of a Living Person don't understand your summary. I only ask to assume good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was mostly focused on the undocumented alien maid. This section has been the focus of poltical posturing, and when I saw you add some words like "however" and "claims" to link sections together it reads like NPOV.  I should have been more specific.  Arzel (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My born date
Could you have a look here? . If you could also make a correction on the SPI page, that would be appreciated. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you were to correct the noted error and not leave knowingly false information in place as strikethrough text that would be appreciated. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your correction is noticeably less prominent than you error. The issue is not me, but BS24, and if you could focus on the substantial and relevant evidence for BS24's alleged and well-noted disruptiveness, that might be of help to his case. I would suggest that posts about me will have no bearing on how an Admin will conduct the investigation. As to my sockpuppet investigation, which was concluded in my favor, you can find out more about it here. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also would like you to correct your false assertion that I am opposed to the mediation process. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you had not made statements that would make people think that you and IP82 were the same person and had just used your account instead of IP67 and IP69 then you would never had a checkuser against you. As for the mediation process, I cannot correct which is not false.  You have been the most vocal against the mediation process.  Arzel (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware statements of mine to that effect, and have always wondered what is being referred to. (BTW, no one could figure out what was meant by IP82) It's impossible to declare someone who agrees to mediation, and has not since agreement voiced any opposition, as an active opponent of mediation. It could do the right thing and correct your posts maintaining that error. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you go back and read some of your own comments here. If that is not opposition then please tell me where that line is. Arzel (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The line is chronological, and all my above comments have addressed that aspect. If you would take back your statements that make it seem that I'm presently opposed, I would be grateful. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear that? Crickets. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your hostile and confrontational tone in any and all disputes is very unbecoming and doesn't help your vendetta against me and others. BS24 (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Stalking
BS24 used so many socks that it was near impossible to detect which tags he didn't add. An editor restored those for which there was consensus and non-disruptive. And in case you're concerned that you've unintentionally may have suggested that I was being disruptive, this may help you. . As for Wikistalking? Hmmm. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said you were disruptive, even though you are disruptive. I said you were vindictive.  Probably the most vindictive editor I have ever seen on WP.  Normally I would simply remove your trollish comments, but I have decided that others should also be able to see a history of your vindictiveness.  Happy Halloween.  Arzel (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA. Watch the fishes of your aquarium and relax! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that 47 of your last 50 edits (as I write this) are centered around an editor, rather than content, you do appear to be bordering on, if not already, Harassment and/or No personal attacks. Administration has responded to the SPI, and since you have nothing new to add regarding recent activity of sockpuppetry, this is the point where editors drop the stick and walk away. // Akerans (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah. Good try though. Admins who seem to have fashioned a double secret stature of limitations need help, especially when the SPI subject has trucked in so many blatant empirical falsehoods that they can not go unadressed. Now, if you would like to substantially counter the charges, and without resorting any of the multi-faceted ad hominem attacks adopted by BS24 and Arzel, hop to it. BS24 and Arzel seem to be without that capacity. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I really like how you manage multiple personal attacks on both BS24 and myself in so few words. Arzel (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Somehow I don't think that was flattery. Prove my charges wrong, and I'll gift wrap a mea culpa. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to prove the negative. Arzel (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You just lost me. All the documentation positively proves that BS24 (who may have had enough socks to go into the double digits) actively evaded scrutiny, and falsely claimed to have been on indefinite ban for one act of vandalism. So what would be the negatives you can't prove? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The recent sockpuppets that you didn't list. Can't disprove those. That is not to say I would try to disprove them, however. Akerans (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert for The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC) -

Liar
"Liar" is your word which you put in my mouth. BS24's "mendacity" (my word) damningly documented by me and Xenophrenic; so well that I suppose that is why there has been no substantial response, but only the assumption of the pitiful victim role. I stand by the charge. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You typed it, not me, so unless you have a different meaning for it, you have stated that BS24 has a tendency to not tell the truth. Perhaps I should have said you basically called him a habitual liar.  Arzel (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My mouth's full of words you keep jamming in there. Maybe you could substantially defend BS24 against the charges. He hasn't, but you could should there be such a defense. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Arzel, AKA has a really good point here: Both in the SPI and in the WQA you are not arguing the matter, but "but insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument [...]. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions." 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you can make such a statement when AKA is the one insulting and belittling others. Note, this section is closed.  Arzel (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Last word's mine! The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning...
But honestly, if they manage to get me blocked, I shan't have any faith in wikipedia anyways. Whatever that tool may say I'm no man's sockpuppet and have plenty of personality to prove it. Soxwon (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I hear you there. Arzel (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't a sock? Dude, you have SOX right in your name; that is such in-your-face-guilt that you should just admit it right now. Case closed. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A question...
Arzel, I have a question about your comment about BS24 where you say, He then starts over without causing any problems, and by all accounts has been a reasonable editor during the past 10 months. I know that's the narrative he has been pushing, but I think that may be the source of his difficulties right now. A quick examination of his first 13 edits as BS24 (and the images he uploaded to commons at that time) shows he was still in vandalism mode. Can you please take a look at those 13 edits & images, and give me an explanation for them that doesn't include vandalism? I'm predicting you can not. He didn't create the BS24 account as a clean start; it was his 7th attempt at evading his block (his prior 6 sock accounts were caught and blocked), and luckily for him no one discovered it was a sock until recently. Yes, he admitted it, but only after an SPI report was filed with evidence making it impossible to deny. Still, I think he has a chance to recover his editing privileges if he drops the little lies he's been telling while trying to save face, and focuses instead on the greater truth that he's been trying to be a productive editor for many months now. Plenty of admins are willing to go with the redemption route, as long as they don't perceive BS24 is lying to them about certain details. I notice you offered to help him get his block lifted. If you feel there is any merit to what I've said, perhaps you can convey it to him (he's not likely to listen to me); or if you disagree with me, just disregard this. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends upon your personal definition of reasonable. Was he perfect, probably not, but then who is.  He obviously felt like no admins were listening to his side of the NYyankees51 story, and by all accounts they were not.  Should he have gone the preferred route regarding NYyankees51, yeah, I would say he should have.  However, if you look at his history as BS24 for the past months he has been a reasonable editor.  At least as reasonable as most people.  You say his first 13 edits are not reasonable, and maybe they were not but what matters is what he is doing in recent history.  Blocks are supposed to be corrective, and the actions regarding NYyankees51 seem to have resulted in that corrective behaviour.  What is the point of redemtion if there is a vindictive attitude that says, "Yeah I know you have been pretty good the past few months, but it doesn't matter because you did something wrong 10 months ago."  Arzel (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point of my comment. I personally have no doubt he was involved in some juvenile antics with one or more friends/family, and it included article vandalism.  I also agree that he has maintained a marginally productive edit history in recent months (he still needs work on edit warring, civility, combative attitude ... but there are certainly worse editors that are not blocked).  The point I was making is if he wants to salvage his BS24 account (or his NYyankees51 account, if admins so insist), he needs to quit morphing his story and excuses at every turn. Admins don't want to be spending time on this crap, so if he just admits his wrongs, apologizes and promises it won't happen again, the admins will eagerly jump on it and give him a pass. (Much to Mr. Anon's chagrin, I'm sure...) But the longer he plays the defense & excuse game of trying to justify BS24 as a "clean start" and insisting he did nothing wrong when creating it, or claiming he didn't know what "avoiding scrutiny" was ... he's just begging to have admins (or worse, his fan club of Wikipedia editors that don't like him) pick apart his every word.  As his self-appointed defense attorney, you should have advised him to roll over and play dead, so that the admins would give him "one more chance" just to close the books on this issue.  Just my opinion, of course. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my assumption that he is telling the truth, so telling him to roll over just didn't factor into my logic. I believe in playing it straight, also, I don't think AKA or 82 would allow him to play dead.  They seem pretty insistant of trying to shoot holes in his history (you are not helping matters either).  Certainly, he has made a couple of contridictory statements, but given that this happened almost a year ago I am not surprised that he might get a couple of facts wrong.  However, if you look at his actions during this time it is easy to see how it was something juvenile.  The history of the edits between IP68 and NYyankees clearly support his general story.  Also, if he was a habitual sock user, then why has there been no suspected socks in relation to the RTH mediation.  If ever there was a time for a sock user to employ socks it would have been then to strengthen his argument.  His actions do not conform to disruptive sock abuse outside of the incident almost one year ago.  Arzel (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there are suspected socks since the Restore Honor mediation, although I'm not sure how strong the suspicion is. And yeah, I know I appear to be part of the "pile-on" in the BS24 situation, but I just interject to correct errors -- sometimes even those made by admins.  I'm ambivalent as to whether BS24 is blocked or not (as I'm certain he will be editing Wikipedia for a long time to come, one way or another), but I will speak up when I see blatant falsifications.  You never did give me your opinion about his first 13 edits as BS24 -- and the images he uploaded.  He has told some truths, and he has lied a bit -- and unfortunately, he lied when he said BS24 was created as a clean start effort.  He may have slowly developed it into an account he decided to keep, and is now fighting to keep, but it most certainly didn't start that way.  I could easily have been convinced that he is not "a habitual sock user", if it weren't for all the other deception involved in this mess right now. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the specifics of the situations he was referring to, so it is hard to judge. The one image is gone, I don't understand the other image.  It doesn't appear on the surface to be anything that egregious, at least not compared to most of the crap that people put on WP.  So I don't quite know where you are going with this.  Arzel (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The recent 9 month

 * Arzel, it wasn't just 10 month ago... As one of many samples: Less than one month ago an IP made a valid change which was well substantiated by a new source. But then BS24 reverted that change and gave the user a dressing-down "Please [...] read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia.". Treating new editors in such a way makes it harder to gain and retain motivated and constructive Wikipedia contributors, hurting Wikipedia. Do you think this such contributions of BS24 are "reasonable"? Over the time, BS24 made many good edits, but also various bad edits. I'm absolutely in favor of giving everyone new chances. I just think for using a second change it is a better idea to signal understanding of wrong behavior in the past and indicate changed behavior for the future (which really does not hurt, which I know from own experience). He should be careful which path to take. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. You stalk BS24 to other articles and revert him out of spite and claim he is the one that needs to work on his editing?  That IP editor that you ran to defend has a history of making edits that don't match sources.  Arzel (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's simple: BS24 reverted an substantiated edit from me by ridiculously claiming that it was vandalism. And then, after the "fresh start" discussion started in the SPI, I was interested into finding out if he did this to others, too. And therefore I was looking into the history of BS24. Note that this IP edit was perfectly reasonable and matching the sources - please verify it! Look at the SPI page, it's all documented, readable for everyone, including admins. Ok, you tell me again how @&$§?*# I am because of all this. But I notic that you don't try to defend these recent BS24 edits as "reasonable". 82.135.29.209 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any edit from BS24 where he called your edit vandalism. The IP150 edit that he reverted was not with malice, so I don't know what your problem is. Arzel (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding vandalism: Again, look at the SPI page, it's all documented. Or you also can just look at the first entry of my talk page. Regarding IP150: The problem is not the edit of that IP, but BS24's reaction to it. Also here, please look at the SPI page. I have the impression that you are not very familiar with the facts of the SPI. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaker of the House
Could we at least keep the part about how sometimes the Speaker can be influential even when they belong to the same party? Thank You. Politics2012 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

RE: This is not acceptable. Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS Arzel (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

From Johndarth, To Arzel: - While you deleted this simple unbiased addition because you challanged the reference, there is now an entire section on this page with other references showing my addition to be factual. Before you edit for 'fact' and legitimacy of references, you should check the references for accuracy. There should also be policies on Wiki, about restricting edits by those who make improper edits citing Wiki policies, when they turn out to be in error. My addition was factual. Your removal was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndarth (talk • contribs) 13:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51 SPI
Arzel, I can assure you there is no "mission". I also didn't search for socks; someone else reported these diffs to me, I was just the one who reported them into a SPI. If there are new socks, then they should be blocked. If not, then not. That's all. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

All in all, I suggest for the future that everyone leaves all this personal animosities behind and focus on improving Wikipedia articles and on a subject oriented discussion at the mediation. And note that a mediation is not about majority and voting; changing the list of participants of a mediation does not change the facts. Peace? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Peace can only be given to those that extend their hand. Stop extending your fist and you will recieve peace.  Arzel (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you are still punching BS24 in the face. I bet you are a griefer as well.  Arzel (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Arzel, just a quick observation, did you see this edit here? He removed the strike-out of BS24's opening statement on the grounds that it would be ad hominem to discount what he had to say just because he's blocked. AGF, or another punch in the face?  The edit was around 4:39 AM this morning.  Respect, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * IP82 needs to build some more relationship chits. He is running a pretty high negative balance right now.  Arzel (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Empirical note
You are very mistaken. SpecialK is the ONLY one I've accused of being a sock since the BS24 SPI. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I said you think everyone is a sock. I didn't say that you have accused everyone, but it is really just semantics.  You might as well make your SPI case against SK, Xeno is probabably not going to take this action since it will look like a retribution attack against SK for the 3RR fracus between them.  Let me know when you are done being a complete JA regarding the whole BS24 situation.  Arzel (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase you: I didn't say it, but it's just semantics, so I did say it. What makes you think BS24, completely reversing compulsive tendencies, won't use socks again, if not already? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Arzel, regarding the "fracus between SpecialK and myself", you should recall that during that short edit war, SpecialK exceeded 3RR while I did not, and then he made the mistake of reporting it, and he was blocked for it. No skin off my nose; there is nothing for which I should exact "retribution". You are correct, however, that I won't be participating in an SPI linking BS24 to SpecialK, but that's simply because I don't see any connection. Being a conservative, POV pusher in American politics, edit warrior and obnoxious, can describe many thousands of Wikipedia editors, and is not enough in common to warrant the accusation. I'm fairly certain SpecialK has other prior and present identities, and I've a good idea who two of them are -- but BS24 isn't one of them. I'm with Arzel in cautioning against a sock-hunt feeding frenzy, but much of what BS24 is dealing with now he brought upon himself. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see. A 3 year editing history of not socking, followed by a month (give or take) of socking, followed by 9 months of not socking. Plus, the fact no one has been able to demonstrate s/he's socked in that 9 months. Somewhere someone has mentioned some IP address, but I chalk that up to forgetting to log-in. Something of which you're guilty (you've edited from a number of IPs yourself), so you can't fault him/her for that. Speaking of which, how about the fact you included one of your IP edits in your initial SPI report against BS24, and then claimed it was made by BS24! If anyone is guilty of recent socking, it's you. And, you didn't even own up to that fact. All you did was say you shouldn't address comments to other editors. So, I have a lot more faith in BS24's desire to be a positive contributor to the project than than stuff you've shown in the past few weeks. Giving your lack of civility to a number of administrators of late, I'm surprised you haven't been blocked yet for your disruptive attitude. You've clearly demonstrated to me that you're no longer here to contribute positive to the project, and are only seeking to stir up trouble where ever you go. Akerans (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Akerans, I believe, is addressing me. I previously shined his allegation of sock puppetry as too weird and nonsensical. And it still seems so to me.) 
 * Akerans' definition of a sock and Wikipedia's, which requires deception, are in conflict. I signed a lot of my post Mr Anon, so they would be traced back to me, not to maliciously evade scrutiny. (Could you think of a worse way to go on the Wiki lam?) I now log on because the opposite suspicion happened, obvioulsy.  Opening new accounts while on indefinite block, as NYyankees51 did again and again and again, may win your admiration, but if that's what it takes to get it, I'll pass. Only in your mind am I "guilty of recent socking," and you and others can stay so convinced without my taking offense. This posting is more for others to see and to clear the record. Finally, it's false to say that I have not been mute on the matter.. I hopeoldid=390542895]. But then BS24 reverted that change and gave the user a dressing-down "Please [...] read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia.". Treating new editors in such a way makes it harder to gain and retain motivated and constructive Wikipedia contributors, hurting Wikipedia. Do you think this such contributions of BS24 are "reasonable"? Over the time, BS24 made many good edits, but also various bad edits. I'm absolutely in favor of giving everyone new chances. I just think for using a second change it is a better idea to signal understanding of wrong behavior in the past and indicate  changed behavior for the future (which really does not hurt, which I know from own experience). He should be careful which path to take. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. You stalk BS24 to other articles and revert him out of spite and claim he is the one that needs to work on his editing?  That IP editor that you ran to defend has a history of making edits that don't match sources.  Arzel (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's simple: BS24 reverted an substantiated edit from me by ridiculously claiming that it was vandalism. And then, after the "fresh start" discussion started in the SPI, I was interested into finding out if he did this to others, too. And therefore I was looking into the history of BS24. Note that this IP edit was perfectly reasonable and matching the sources - please verify it! Look at the SPI page, it's all documented, readable for everyone, including admins. Ok, you tell me again how @ you simply misspoke because you did not check my SPI, and are not revealing a sense of entitlement larger than the that which SPI admins can rightfully enjoy. [[User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous|The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you knew you signed your IP edits as Mr Anon, then why did you claim that was BS24's edit in the first place? That's a clear case of an attempt on your part to mislead, deceive, and/or disrupt. And a previous SPI against you doesn't excuse you for making such deceptive claims against other users. Akerans (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I get it. You're habit of reading less than closely has not diminished, and there is no deception to speak of. I cited those edits by mistake, fixed it, and said so when I said, "Akerans is right and I did direct comments to other editors, which I should not have done and will not make any excuses for." Note that stating "I did direct those comments" (the ones cited then and now) shows those posts are clearly owned by me, and could not belong to BS24, or suggested to be his except by mistake. I thought that was so clear and unmistakable at the time, and I still don't know where the confusion is from. Anything else you might want, though you may already have it?  Just ask, I'll be waiting here outside your distortion field.  02:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC) (Updated to stress the obvious after Akerans replied to post in original form)
 * No, that wasn't you owning up to the fact that you tried to pass off one of your edit summaries as someone else. That was you admitting to the edit summary. Do you not understand the difference? Based on your recent post, appears as though you're chalking it up as a mistake. However, as an editor who tends accuse others of "reading less", I have to wonder how you missed "Mr Anon" in the edit summary, twice no less. Perhaps you can start holding yourself to the same kind of standard you expect of everyone else? Akerans (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You really don't have to think it was just an accidental mistake. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, you did not quote my initial report, you quoted a follow up, though it was easy to see as such since I headed it "(Additional evidence in response to BS24's statement.)". I'm seeing a pattern of sloppiness, which though undoubtly based on good faith, makes me need to check your citations in order to consider them carefully. A little onerous, but, oh well.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of my label, that's the correct diff of you making the deceptive claim. So, knowing that was your edit, why did you say the edit belonged to someone else? Two of them no less! You included two edits signed with Mr Anon and claimed they were BS24?! You tell us that you knew they were yours, and you did it anyway? And you don't see the deception on your part? Akerans (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, lo, lo, lo. AK in the echo chamber, y'all. Easy now. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, hear that? Crickets. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

3 year editing history of not being caught socking, followed by two months of socking and vandalism, followed by 9 months of editing on a sock. Plus, he has edited from IPs extensively, claiming, for instance, that 50+ edits across several articles over just a couple days was simply "forgetting to log in". Since being recently confronted, his biggest problem has been his lying -- not a good trait for someone wanting to turn over a new leaf. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of fact: NYyankees51 admittedly spent 11 (2+9) months as a sock of NYyankees51, as best we know. A sum likely to swell, no doubt, and unfortunately. As for SpecialK, Xeno probably has a better read on that editor, and unless I find more to pursue it, I'm letting it slide for now, even though I still strongly suspect him as a sock of NYyankees51. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Distinction w/o difference
Not only was your statement incorrect and a distinction without a difference, NYyankees51 could not stop lying. The admin who rejected his third all but proved this. BTW, scolding that admin won't help BS24, quiet the opposite. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That Admin didn't prove anything, and neither have you, other than that you are vindictive. Arzel (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah. Funny how you never acknowledge a mistake, or only read half of a short sentence. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Helping" NYyankees51
Hi Arzel!

I believe you that you want to help NYyankees51. But it seems to obvious for everyone else that you are more hurting than helping him. Yes, when not even looking into the original evidence in the SPI, you may really think by yourself and claim that he has a "largely good edit history". But if this leads NYyankees51 that he tries to defends his bad actions, this makes it harder for people to assume good faith. Think about it! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This coming from a WP:SPA that hides behind an IP address. Arzel (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an unfortunate and baseless smear. Retracting it would be a good step. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I write this; 40 of 44 (89.24%) article edits have been to Restoring Honor Rally. 200 of 208 (96.15%) talk edits have been to Talk:Restoring Honor Rally. Most of the 118 user talk edits focus on Restoring Honor Rally and/or NYyankees51/BS24. And, most of the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk edits focus on Restoring Honor Rally and/or NYyankees51/BS24. 82.135.29.209 has a couple edits outside of Restoring Honor Rally and/or NYyankees51/BS24 to address sock puppet allegations of other uses and user name request. Sources: Edit Counter, Restoring Honor Rally edit count, Talk:Restoring Honor Rally edit count, 82.135.29.209 User talk edits, 82.135.29.209 Wikipedia edits, 82.135.29.209 Wikipedia talk edits. // Akerans (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You must think I don't know that IP209 is SPA (a fact not damning in and of itself at all). Oh well. Not my fault.  The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, the word "baseless" seems to have some completely different meaning of which I'm not aware. Care to elaborate? Akerans (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On what? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Crickets? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification
So you know, I have provided a diff containing one of your comments in a Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Akerans (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

regarding fox
Please read the source and use the discuss page. The version you reverted the article to is clearly a misrepresentation of the source. If you are unhappy with my formulation, feel free to come up with another one, but the current one cannot say, since it is false description of the source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Death Panel
I made some changes on the basis of neutrality and you reversed it on the grounds of source reliability. This does not make sense. We cannot have a section called "Rationing" and then sub it with NICE and IPAB as if it were correct that these are rationing bodies. That is POV. By putting the headings as questions it leaves it open to the reader to read the sections and decide for themselves. I am just about to edit the article to give counterbalancing opinions on this issue. My edit was therefore on the grounds of NPOV and not reliabilty. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You renamed the headers with a question. Is NICE a Death Panel?  We already know that your point of view is that they are not.  You then present the information in order to answer the question No.  This is Original Research in a very basic form.  WP is NOT a research paper.  Arzel (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I renamed the header "Is NICE comparable with the IPAB?", Not "Is NICE a Death Panel? . This is to invite the reader to look at the unsubstantiated opinion expressed by David Grazter and compare it with hard evidence from UK sources. Gratzer claimed that it was a comparable body and I wanted to present material that shows it isn't. The IPAB sets doctors remuneration and NICE has nothing at all to do with doctor's salaries. That is the work of two other groups wholly unconnected to NICE. The fact that NICE is a clinical research reviewer which gives guidance to clinicians and IPAB does not. It was totally POV for the article just to list NICE under RATIONING and have a statement from an unreliable Canadian comparing chalk and cheese and calling them "comparable".  I cannot delete an untruth because a reliable source published it, so I can only present more believable information from even more reliable sources to show that there is another view. Which way the reader answers the question in the section heading would be entirely up to them. Hauskalainen (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Potato - Tomato, in either case you are presenting your own research. You may not agree with Grazter opinion, but that does not mean that he is wrong, and for you to try to prove that he is wrong is a violation of original research.  Arzel (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Now what "original research" would that be? my "research" that Doctors pay in England is recommended by the Pay Review Board? I am sorry but that does not need research of any kind, its just common fact. Most adults in England know this. Same with the army and other civil servants. We simply cannot allow David Gratzer's claim that IPAB and NICE are doing the same job to stand unchallenged because it simply is not true. NICE's main job is clinical research and public health promotion, and now safety standards. IPAB does none of these things. That was what I was adding to the article. Simple facts supported by references to allow the readers to decide the question for themselves.

Getting off the topic of my edit and into the real world, of course what Gratzer was trying to equate is something which IPAB has been set up to do (i.e. to make cuts) and something that NICE is perceived to do (which is to put a value on a benefit and ask is the value of the benefit worth the cost given that we have a budget and 57 million insured persons some of whom could blow the budget if the value of a benefit is set too high. As it happens, in practice, this is actually a very tiny part of what NICE does and, for it is part of the historical record, it was never something that the government targeted NICE to do. But because the government essentially gives the NHS a budget and lets them spend it, it was the doctors and health economists at NICE who asked themselves the question "how can we evaluate benefits, and what are the limits on we should set so as not to blow the NHS budget. They came up with the idea of QALY and 30000 pounds as a best guestimate of what that figure was. What IPAB will do is hack away at costs with a blunt instrument and only into doctors pay. What NICE does is to go at the problem with a surgeons knife and cut away the useless fat and leave the meat. And by default almost, its "target" has become the medical technology industry which can deliver benefits but seemingly very often at a very high price. So even if we look at the way they work to reduce costs, IPAB and NICE are nothing like one another (IMHO). But then my edits were not going to go into all this.All I was going to do was point to the main roles of the two organization and who sets doctors pay in England. The history lesson above is just for your benefit.::Now what "original research" would that be? my "research" that Doctors pay in England is recommended by the Pay Review Board? I am sorry but that does not need research of any kind, its just common fact. Most adults in England know this. Same with the army and other civil servants. We simply cannot allow David Gratzer's claim that IPAB and NICE are doing the same job to stand unchallenged because it simply is not true. NICE's main job is clinical research and public health promotion, and now safety standards. IPAB does none of these things. That was what I was adding to the article. Simple facts supported by references to allow the readers to decide the question for themselves.

Getting off the topic of my edit and into the real world, of course what Gratzer was trying to equate is something which IPAB has been set up to do (i.e. to make cuts) and something that NICE is perceived to do (which is to put a value on a benefit and ask is the value of the benefit worth the cost given that we have a budget and 57 million insured persons some of whom could blow the budget if the value of a benefit is set too high. As it happens, in practice, this is actually a very tiny part of what NICE does and, for it is part of the historical record, it was never something that the government targeted NICE to do. But because the government essentially gives the NHS a budget and lets them spend it, it was the doctors and health economists at NICE who asked themselves the question "how can we evaluate benefits, and what are the limits on we should set so as not to blow the NHS budget. They came up with the idea of QALY and 30000 pounds as a best guestimate of what that figure was. What IPAB will do is hack away at costs with a blunt instrument and only into doctors pay. What NICE does is to go at the problem with a surgeons knife and cut away the useless fat and leave the meat. And by default almost, its "target" has become the medical technology industry which can deliver benefits but seemingly very often at a very high price. So even if we look at the way they work to reduce costs, IPAB and NICE are nothing like one another (IMHO). But then my edits were not going to go into all this.All I was going to do was point to the main roles of the two organization and who sets doctors pay in England. The history lesson above is just for your benefit.Hauskalainen (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

death panel again
i found your opinion piece here curious. i am not aware most doctors lose money on medicare. could you give me a source where i can read more? there is no one price hospitals charge anyways. i know payments differ at a hospital between whatever insurance company or the uninsured. but i take the largest issue with your claim that "One of the biggest drivers of cost in the US is malpractice." Consider when Atul Gawande went to interview physicians in McAllen TX (2nd most expensive medicare area in the country).


 * Dr. GAWANDE: Well, so the first argument would be maybe this is just better, and it's what everybody else should be doing, but as I went through the numbers, and they saw what was happening, then the second argument was well, maybe it's malpractice.


 * DAVIES: Meaning not that they were committing malpractice but that the threat of malpractice lawsuits was driving this.


 * Dr. GAWANDE: That's right. You know, I give an example. A 40-year-old woman comes in after a fight with her husband, and she has some chest pain after this. It goes away. You do an EKG, and it's normal. Her heart looks normal on the EKG. So now what do you do?


 * And the answer 10 or 15 years ago, when McAllen was actually at the norm - they became more expensive about 10 years ago - so about 15 years ago they said that you would get a stress test and leave it at that, and even a stress test might be overkill, but that today, it's highly likely that she'd get a stress test, a cardiac ultrasound, a monitor to check the rhythm of her heart and possibly even a cardiac catheterization. And they sort of laughed ruefully about it, but there was a sense that there could be fear of malpractice playing into this, and yet they admitted and pointed out that since the caps came in in Texas - Texas is a state that passed very strict caps that limit lawsuits.


 * DAVIES: Caps on jury awards you mean, yeah.


 * Dr. GAWANDE: Caps on jury awards, exactly. Since that passed six years ago, they hadn't seen any reduction. If anything, the pattern of doing more had accelerated, and second of all, El Paso has the same conditions and doesn't have this rate of ordering services, and when one of the other folks there, a surgeon, finally piped and said this is just overuse, and we just have to admit it. And what he was talking about was a tendency to see the revenues behind this, behind what they did, as one of the factors that could drive a tendency to order these kinds of tests. (see transcript).

In other words, how can you separate out the confounding factor of revenue? There also appears very limited empirical basis for your claim. From a study in the Journal of Health Economics:
 * Given the results of our study, findings from previous research, and statements in the popular media that defensive medicine is extensive and costly, assertions that tort reforms will reduce waste of scarce resources seems, at best, highly premature. The KM (1996) results only apply to related cardiac conditions. The findings on birth outcomes and use of obstetric procedures are mixed. Our results indicate that KM’s findings do not generalize to other reasons for hospital admission. Thus, it seems inappropriate to conclude that tort reforms implemented to date succeed in reducing non-beneficial care as their proponents would have it. On the other hand, the existence of the threat of a lawsuit does not lead to better outcomes as some proponents of the current system would have it either.

Jesanj (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A liberal talking to the liberal NPR is hardly an opinion which I would suspect to argue otherwise. Your cited study is limited in scope.  Look, I am not going to discuss this in detail as my information is from within health care finance.  You can choose to believe the following or not (it matters little to me) but this is a fact    Here is an article that touches on how individual physicians game the system   The health care financial system is extrememly complex, far to complex to go into detail here.  Arzel (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Er.. you don't need to be a top flight mathematician to realise that if the AHA went around saying they were making lots of money on Medicare and Medicaid services, what would Medicare do? Wise up Dude. They HAVE to say their members are losing money because they would be idiots not to - and so would those answering the questionnaire. The American government has medical facilities at the VA and knows how much it costs to runs services. If I was a hospital manager and losing money on Medicare patients I'd just stop taking Medicare patients. I could then serve the private insurers better. The reason that it does not happen that way is because Medicare IS profitable business. It's a pity that US does not have many public hospitals running alongside the private ones, nor a public insurer operating alongside all the private ones. Then people would have a real choice. The NHS in England know very well how much to pay the private hospitals for service because it runs all the same services itself and much more besides. In England the private hospitals are mostly "non-profit", but its a acam because the managers move the profits through trading to other entities. No doubt the same happens in the US.Hauskalainen (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links, I will check them out. That crazy "liberal" Harvard Professor/Rhodes Scholar put it in print too. From the New Yorker. It says about the same thing:


 * "Some were dubious when I told them that McAllen was the country’s most expensive place for health care. I gave them the spending data from Medicare. In 1992, in the McAllen market, the average cost per Medicare enrollee was $4,891, almost exactly the national average. But since then, year after year, McAllen’s health costs have grown faster than any other market in the country, ultimately soaring by more than ten thousand dollars per person.


 * “Maybe the service is better here,” the cardiologist suggested. People can be seen faster and get their tests more readily, he said.


 * Others were skeptical. “I don’t think that explains the costs he’s talking about,” the general surgeon said.


 * “It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.


 * “McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.


 * That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?


 * “Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.


 * “Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.


 * The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ”


 * For what it is worth, the study you call limited says it is more comprehensive than the most cited article about defensive medicine. Jesanj (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Above, you take something to be fact ("this is a fact ") that is based on a theory (cost-shifting) that is not widely accepted. Uwe Reinhardt says "It is widely assumed, among both health insurers and the hospital industry, that the more rapidly rising prices paid by private insurers reflect a cost shift from government to the private sector. The theory is that private insurers must compensate with higher prices for the shortfall from actual cost imposed on providers of care by unduly low Medicaid and Medicare payment rates ... With a few exceptions, economists remain skeptical on the validity of the cost-shift theory, although it may operate in some market environments." The quoted words "remain skeptical" link to this post. Jesanj (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The post references this study: . It concludes that one should have skepticism towards the document you cite. Jesanj (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Civility
Making unproven accusations against other editors is uncivil. Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. In the future, please focus on the edits, not the editor.  Will Beback   talk    21:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did focus on the edit, you just happened to be the editor that made it. Perhaps gaming was too strong of a term, but it certainly was pointy.  Arzel (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When you focus on an edit you ask, "why is there a citation request for this assertion?" When you focus on an editor you ask, "Why did User:A add a citation request? He must be acting in bad faith and pushing a POV." I hope the difference is clear.
 * I assume that "pointy" refers to WP:POINT. How did I disrupt Wikipedia and what point was I trying to make, in your opinion?   Will Beback    talk   
 * I believe you citation request to have been retalitory. You used that source to make a statement that while technically true, was somewhat disingenous and not holding with the point that that source was making.  I added the "who" because the statement as it stood was nebulous and implied more than the source would claim.  You then added the citation request on top of the primary statement, which was backed by the source.  If this had been a fly-by tagging it would have been an edit question, but you have been quite involved in this discussion and you obviously have read this source, or at least the parts relating to this discussion.  As such, you clearly knew that the source backed up the primary statement.  That, to me, is disruptive and not a suitable action for an admin, regardless if you are editing as a "regular".  I hope I make myself clear.  Arzel (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What I see is you making a sequence of unfounded assumptions about my motives. The statement in question was "The Tea Party movement is often cited as an example of grassroots political activity". I don't see on which page Rasmussen makes the assertion that it is "often cited" as such an example. Can you please point it out to me?   Will Beback    talk    02:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What I see is you trying to explain your way out and change the issue. If you want to suddenly claim semantics that is your prerogative, but I would note that you did not make such a claim prior to my addition.  Arzel (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you don't like me explaining my edit, and you seem to be once again assuming bad faith by characterizing my response to you as "explain your way out and change the issue". The issue here is your response to my edit, so I'm not changing the subject at all. You said that I made a pointy, POV edit because I added a citation request for a statement that did not appear to be supported by the nearest footnote. My citation request was completely valid. I again ask you to prove that it was not.    Will Beback    talk    06:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Rasmussen said that the TP is an example of grassroots political activity, not "cited as", or "often cited as". — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The text in question is "The Tea Party movement is often cited as an example of grassroots political activity". Does Rasmussen say that? If not, then it was appropriate to ask for a source for that assertion.   Will Beback    talk    08:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Prove that you cared prior. You seem to be looking for a justification after the fact.  I will not play your game.  Arzel (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no game here. You're making serious accusations without justification. Please do not make personal remarks or accusations against other editors on article talk pages. If you have a problem with an editor then user their talk page to discuss it, or one of the other available forums. The only topic for article talk pages is the improvement of the article. Consistent failure to assume good faith or treating topics as a battleground have led to editors being topic- or even site-banned. This is a serious issue, not a game. I hope this won't come up again.   Will Beback    talk    20:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not threaten me because I fail to agree with your point of view. I could have gone straight to ANI and reported you there, I figured we could resolve our issues here.  Now you are trying to turn it back on me.  If you have a problem take it to ANI, but do not threaten me again.  Arzel (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care about your point of view. It's just your behavior. Please don't make unfounded accusations about other editors on article talk pages or assume bad faith.   Will Beback    talk    01:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My behavior was a reflection of your actions. You are right, I should know better. Arzel (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party again
I agree that Mayer is not a reliable source except for her own opinions, but she is a notable gossip reporter, so her opinions may be notable as opinions, provided that don't mention facts about living persons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how her opinion is notable in this situation. It seems more like those that don't like Koch think her opinion is notable because it furthers a rumor against Koch.  To me this looks like a classic BLP violation.  We should not be feeding speculative rumors about anyone.  Arzel (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks
for the recent revert at death panel. it appears that editor is out of control. Jesanj (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is probably putting it lightly. Arzel (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Death panel
If we move the "death panel" argument away from what Palin was talking about (a board set up to euthanise people when they are deemed to have no remaining value to society) to some things which do real good such as bodies which try to help patients by making sure that their doctor is using best available practice and not wasting their money paying for things which yield poor value, then surely we have to include the real death panels that really do kill people. I think we have a reliable source that got its judgment spot on. The U.S. may not get to pull the plug on grandma but it surely does insert the plug for Old Sparky to kill some people (or via hypodermic needle or whatever the current fashion is). Of the 34 members of the OECD, only the US and Japan still uses the barbaric practice of legal executions.Hauskalainen (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't even try to validate such absurd logic. It is clear you have a strong agenda to push, and WP is not the place to do so.  Arzel (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * what absurd logic? That the American Justice system kills people? That NICE does not kill people? It seems perfectly logical to me! Arzel, it is not me that has an agenda to push, it is you. And I can demonstrate it with many examples.Hauskalainen (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that according to you, you are arguing the idea that IPAB and NICE might be death panels IS NOT a fringe theory, but that IT IS fringe theory to suppose that that juries hearing murder cases in capital punishment states might be regarded as a death panel.
 * Just suppose that the American public were asked in a survey to imagine that they had been appointed to one of the following
 * a panel of people whose job it is to control the growth of Medicare spending
 * a panel of people whose job it is to ensure that Medicare funds are used to deliver maximum medical benefit for all seniors
 * a jury panel hearing a murder case in a state where there is a death penalty
 * And that they were then asked "On which of these panels would you feel you had been appointed to a "death panel"?


 * You seem to be saying that the American people would choose 1 and 2 in droves and reject 3, and I would say the complete opposite. I have to say, I don't share your lack of faith in the judgment of the American people. Hauskalainen (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't share your obtuseness. "Death Panel" as it relates to healthcare is a metaphor.  It is nothing like a jury deciding on the guilt of someone that would be sentenced to death.  Arzel (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. Not everyone will share it. I think I'd be sitting on a death panel if a decision of mine could lead someone to someone's death.Hauskalainen (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject: United States
Rapier (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Sean. Thanks for the invite and info.  Arzel (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the project. --Kumioko (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen
I have reported Hauskalainen at the admin notice board. Here is the link. Intermittentgardener (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Overcoming bias in science articles
Hi, I saw your "be careful" and was wondering if you'd like to work with me on finding a way to restore neutrality to some biased articles. I've seen an arbcom notice forbidding the deletion of "well referenced edits that promote a viewpoint", or words to that effect. I believe the ruling was intended to support the notion that a neutral article is one which presents all significant points of view, even when we Wikipedian contributors have formed a consensus which repudiates a minority viewpoint.

Do you agree that minority viewpoints should be included in articles about scientific controversies? If so, do you have any ideas about working together to overcome contributor bias? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP?
What possible violation could it be of BLP to mention the widely-reported fact that the pranker impersonated David H. Koch? Don't want to sound rude, but this seems like very strange reasoning... AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Walkers responses to Murphy's baited questions under the guise of impersonating a living person while recording the conversation would be easily presented out of context. I am not saying that the event can't be reported, but reporting quotes from Walker under these circumstances may not be entirely neutral.  The responses that Walker made were certainly not obtained under good faith of any kind.  This was a form of entrapment by Walker.  I just don't think we should quote walker from these highly questionable tactics.  Arzel (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * However, in your edit summaries, you seemed to be claiming that mentioning the name of impersonee David H. Koch would be a BLP -- something which unfortunately makes very little sense (if any). AnonMoos (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Little confused. I have not made any mention of Koch during my recent edits summaries.  However I do try to make concise points in my edit summaries since they are limited, it is possible that my summary is not as clear as I intended.  You will have to help me out and point to those which you are referring.  Arzel (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Nate Silver
I hope I can end this dispute here. Silver, as well as being a statistician, gained notoriety for predicting the 2008 presidential and 2010 congressional elections with high accuracy through polls so clearly he is a polling expert.

That aside, the poll did have a bias since it asked whether "firemen and policemen" should be allowed to go on strike which is misleading since they're exempt from the budget proposals (meaning the idea of them going on strike is completely unlikely and planted through the poll) and is furthermore illegal. This unlikely and illegal scenario was asked right before "do you agree more with the governor or the union for teachers and other state employees?"

At any rate, the idea that Nate Silver isn't a polling expert is factually false and if it would be a waste of time taking this dispute any further. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think people that I know that actually are statisticians would take issue with him being called a statistician given he doesn't have an advanced degree which the profession is determined. That said, he does have quite a bit of statistical knowledge.  However, understanding statistics is not the same as understanding the psychology regarding polling questions, and AFAIK he has never been classified as such.  His opinion of the statistical methodology may have some merit, but his knowledge of statistics does not make him an expert in polling questions anymore than it makes you an expert in polling questions.  Arzel (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not having an advanced degree? So what? Neither did Francis Galton. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the rules were in the 1800's but today, the title of Statistician is a professional title. Which nominally means advanced training ie, advanced degrees.

Arzel (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? What country are you speaking of? In mine, you are wrong on both counts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to have a word with the US Department of Labor and tell them they don't know what they are talking about here. Arzel (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If I can step in here: Nate Silver is one of the top experts in the polling field. He's very very good at what he does, and only rarely mixes in political bias. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Understanding polling statistics is hardly the same as understanding polling question methodology. I don't know of any evidence that Silver is an expert in polling question methodology, they usually have degrees in Psychology, Sociology, Behavior Sciences and the like.  Arzel (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, usually they have experience, which he does; degrees in many fields consist of listening to people with experience, especially in the applied social sciences. In any case, his argument is a claim of fact.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, since you agree with him it is a fact? Ha.  If Silver had questioned the oversampling in the NYT poll (something that he actually should have the ability to do) I probably wouldn't question his bias.  However, he would rather criticize Rassmussen over quetion methodology (where he has shown no expertise)...so forgive me if fail to find any merit to your arguement.  Arzel (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not forgive you; I said "claim of fact" - an unsubtle distinction. Nor do I acknowledge your expertise - even in this dubious environment, you do not appear to meet your own standard. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have expected you to ignore my statement and a level minor personal attack...how very progressive of you. Arzel (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, WP:OR disallows us to use your expertise regardless. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I was using my expertise to say that Silver is unqualified to discuss statistical aspects. I have only said that he is not an expert in polling question methodology and there is no evidence to point to the contrary.  Understanding statistical methodology is not the same as understanding polling question methodology.   Arzel (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI I mostly come down on your side of the debate on the issue, and I still think Silver had a very good point and is a reliable source. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Restoring Honor
Hi Arzel, hope you're doing well. I just wanted to thank you for your help during my whole block fiasco, I really appreciated it. I would also like to ask you to get involved again in the Restoring Honor rally article again if you're willing. Thankfully we are all working together amicably, so if you're interested, feel free to jump back in. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wish I could have been more help. I have been on the side with the RHr article, but I am still paying attention to it.  You are right, it does appear to be a bit more amicable right now.  Arzel (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

1 RR at Barack Obama
I hope you realise that the Barack Obama article is under 1RR restriction. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess I am not suprised, but since I have made only one revert I really don't have anything to worry about. Arzel (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

please accept the invite to the project we could use an editor of your caliber John D. Rockerduck (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

RM
Jewish background of mother questioned. Chesdovi (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
.--Kumioko (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Page protection
Thanks for your note. I just put on the semi-protection to deal with the recurring vandalism by IPs. the article was under semi-protection before, then that was superseded by the proposed changes test. That was finally removed today and there was more vandalism immediately. The article is still open for editing by yourself and other confirmed editors.  Will Beback   talk    00:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I realize that, and I am not saying it shouldn't be semi protected, just that it probably should be a different admin that does it. Arzel (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If we all agree that it should be protected for vandalism then it's permissible for an involved admin to add it. If you'd like to ask another admin to protect it I won't object.   Will Beback    talk    03:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vandalism, yes. But what you reverted was not vandalism.  You made a change to your preferred position and then semi-protected the page.  That is not permissible.  Arzel (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I regard the deletion of sourced material without an explanation to be vandalism, especially when done by an IP editor, and I revert it many times a day. The page isn't locked, and any confirmed editor, such as yourself, can still edit it (so long as there's a consensus for contentious edits). So it's not an issue of fully protecting an article on a preferred version, which you're right would be inappropriate.    Will Beback    talk    18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama discussion page
Regarding these talk page comments please do not use the talk page of a high traffic article to refer to WP as a "cesspool" or editors you disagree with of being a "protectorate" that whitewashes political articles. Note that the Obama article and talk page are under "article probation" (see the header area of the talk page on that), and accusing editors who disagree with your efforts to add negative information about a politiciann of whitewashing the encyclopedia for political purposes is an accusation of bad faith of the sort that lead to article probation in the first place. If you have a specific proposal to discuss for improving the article, please engage in the consensus-building discussion relating to the content of the article, not the editors working on it. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * wow, have cesspool and protectorate really offended you that much? back in the day, years before you were an editor here, this would have been laughable.  i am sad to see wp has become so sensitive, pass the tissue.  Darkstar1st (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The truth tends to hurt the most. I must laugh at Wikidemon's comments however.  When the multitude of liberal editors insist on trashing conservatives those that try to abide by BLP policies are accused of whitewashing and a lack of good faith.  Arzel (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Laugh all you want here, but please heed the caution and try to keep discussion productive on the talk page. Making things into a liberal versus conservative issue is decidedly unproductive.  There has been an arbitration case, article probation, hundreds of accounts blocked, and a few dozen administrative actions over the Obama article.  Accusing perceived ideological opponents of whitewashing and ownership is at the heart of the trouble and a favorite refrain of the many socks so I'm not particularly keen to banter jokingly over that.  No tissue necessary, just a collaborative approach.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediation around Abortion articles location
After the latest move request has landed up with about equal numbers for both sides I've started a mediation request. Please indicate there if you wish to participate. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A proposal has been made to rename the two abortion articles to completely new names, namely 'Opposition to legalized abortion' and 'Support for legalized abortion'. The idea, which is located at the Mediation Cabal, is currently open for opinions. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Besides ... I had to try that "Wikilove" button just once. :) — Ched : ?  08:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Michele Bachmann, you may be blocked from editing. ''You have violated the 3RR within a 24 hour period. Please discuss your dispute on the talk page and refrain from deletions. Dinky town  talk  05:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)'' Dinky town   talk  05:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I made 2 reverts. This was my first edit and I made one and two reverts...and I started the conversation.  Learn how to count.  Arzel (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

“White vs Black” culture debate on “Flash mob” page
Hi there, I noticed your discussion with other users on the flash mob about the problems with connecting race to violence with regards to violent flash mobbing. I completely agree with you. But it seems there are a few more users who are a bit obsessed with their own need to constantly point out the Philadelphia riots involved black kids and not much else. Apparently I—and others—don’t have the “balls” and are “pussies” for avoiding mention of race int the article. Any help, assistance or support you can provide in policing the article or perhaps explaining your POV to others on the talk page is appreciated. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Temperature History
Hi Arzel, Can't really discuss general GW stuff of the GW talk page but if you are interested I'm always keen to hear the other side of the argument on my talk page. It makes editing hard if editors have very different views on a topic so I think some background discussion helps and at least one and probably both parties benefit....--IanOfNorwich (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

People's Library merge debate
Hello Arzel,

The opposition in the merge discussion is rising. Would appreciate your continued support for pro-merge. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Can we work it out here?
Hi, I don't know if you added the funding section initially, but when I removed it you re-added it. As perhaps the most pro-OWS person who edits the article, I'm assuring you that our donations are doing fine and if you make the article too "pro-OWS" it will make editors like myself (and you? guessing you are pro-ows also?) be put under the microscope. We get donations from other non-profit 501(c)(3) and we're strictly avoiding "public donations" because once you accept donations from everyone, they start to have a "voice" so to speak. Our direction and focus gets us our needed funding. If you want to help, just keep the article favorable for OWS, but don't make anyone think we're spamming the article to drive donations. That will get us blocked, and there's even an ironic chance that having a bigger piggy bank will cause more freeloaders to try and get their hands in the cookie jar. If you want to discuss it specifically on the talk page of OWS, then I'll have to be more brief and to the point, depending on how much you want to know... 02:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically (without trying to be too specific) when you accept something from somebody, you owe them. Once you have too many people giving you money, they start to think you owe them something. As it is now, the protesters are pretty much our sheep. We want people to give their time and to come occupy the campsites we designate and show up to the events we hold. It's been shown that if people donate $20, then they think they don't have to show up in person as much. We'd rather have an extra body on the ground, rather than $20. The donations we get our low volume, and high amounts. Once people start giving OWS money, it becomes less focused on the message. What is our one demand? Occupy Wall Street! 완젬스 (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your editing of Real Clear Politics
The dispute raised in my mind a more general question of Wikipedia procedure. I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. I didn't mention you by name but I'm alerting you here in case you wish to comment there. JamesMLane t c 19:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) is "widely considered a conservative"
That is a claim being made about him on his BLP. I see you have done research on this person and Fox News, and I was wondering if you have ever seen any reliable sources mention this claim? The two footnoted sources do not make the claim he is "widely considered a conservative". They only describe him as "conservative." The internet sources that do mention this claim are merely copying and using this wiki BLP as a content source. This is probably because when they Google "Bill O'Reilly conservative", this wiki BLP pops up as #1 match on Google search. It is my opinion that this unverified claim is pure original research which relies upon great synthesis of two unsupporting sources to push a point of view deemed to be harmful and upsetting to O'Reilly. Unfortunately, the powerful voice of wikipedia is standing alone in making and spreading this unverified claim which I believe violates BLP rules, especially since O'Reilly says he is an 'independent' and vehemently objects to being labeled as a conservative or a Republican. -iLyekka (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
 * If you wish to respond to this, please go there and comment. Thanks --iLyekka (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:TPO
Arzel, I object to your edit of my comment on the Rick Santorum talk page and I believe it amounted to censorship. You can review your edit here. I understand you think that my comment amounted to a personal attack on a BLP, but the whole discussion is whether including the cited language is or is not a policy violation. Your censorship only serves to interfere with a productive resolution to the issue. Please comment. I understand this is touchy subject matter; please keep personal attacks to a minimum. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Productive is strange way to state what appears to be little more than an attempt to emphasise a smear attack against a living person. I find it highly ironic that you would compain about a supposed personal attack while promoting the actual attack of Savage on a public person.   Arzel (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My point is that you are entitled to your position, as I am to mine. Attempting to silence my opinion because you disagree with it inflames tensions, delays resolution of the issue, and constitutes a blatant WP:TPO violation. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring
You're at (actually, beyond) 3RR on Rick Santorum. "BLP violations" might hold up, or it might not -- perhaps best to let others revert genuinely problematic stuff for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Politics and agf
Hey Arzel. Just a quick comment about the discussion at R. Santorum. It's best we don't comment on perceived motivations of other editors. It usually results in a downturn in the quality of debate. After all, I'm a Canadian leftie, but like you I support discretion for Santorum, a person who I would never vote for. The Interior (Talk) 18:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixing additional vandalism
Thanks for catching the vandalism that the history-undo link didn't catch on the Mitt Romney article. Here is a cat.

Bennyfactor (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC) 

Thanks! I figured it was something strange. Arzel (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Seamus (dog)
I strongly disagree with the article for Seamus (dog) should be deleted. There are hundreds of news articles related to Seamus, and the article is written in accordance to Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwainwr123 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hundreds all saying the same thing which by itself doesn't mean a whole lot. There are lots of things that have been written about that do not have their own article.  The dog Seamus simply does not have any notability outside of the one event.  A7 of the deletion criteria reads that this article does not have the notability to remain.  The little information that their is should be incorporated into the 2008 and or 2012 presidential election(s).   Arzel (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

backstory on the blackout
I've been looking into some of the origins of how this came about. Apparently the day right after Daily Kos announced its "activism plan" on Dec 11 SOPA_initiative was launched and it was just two days after that that Wikimedia general counsel Geoff Brigham directed the Wikipedia community back to the Daily Kos’ “activism plan” as part of his “Call to action”. That same day that Wikipedia’s SOPA initiative page linked to the Daily Kos, the Daily Kos called Kossacks' attention to the fact a possible action was being discussed on Wikipedia and linked to the poll Jimmy Wales had kicked off. The ball just kept rolling from there. I don't want to suggest conspiracy or anything, but there's a LOT of evidence that the "Wikipedia community" was mobilized by some real pros, as I chronicle in this lengthy blogpost. Just a heads up that more advocacy may be coming this way.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info Brian, if any of this is true, Wikipedia should lose its non-profit status. Right or Wrong, WP should not be sticking it's nose into political activism. period.  Arzel (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There was no promotion of a political candidate involved. Lobbying on legislation is on a different footing.  According to one well-known online encyclopedia:
 * "In contrast to the absolute prohibition on political campaign interventions by all section 501(c)(3) organizations, public charities (but not private foundations) may conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that 'No substantial part...' of a public charity's activities can go to lobbying, charities with large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the 'expenditure' test), or more (under the 'substantial part' test) per year on lobbying. (from 501(c) organization)"
 * AFAIK the Internal Revenue Code does not contain a "McCarthyism rule" under which association with the evil wretches at the Daily Kos is grounds for losing nonprofit status. JamesMLane t c 05:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This action was not lobbying, it was direct activism in the face of a proposed bill. Churches have lost their tax-exempt status for a period of time for similar activities.  WP should probably lose their's for 2012 because of this action.  Arzel (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the WMF hires staff right out of Daily Kos or its fellow traveler Moveon.org, which they did, that's one thing, but it's another for the editing community to be in general ignorance of these relationships. If the IRS assessed the blackout to be an "in kind" contribution to the anti-SOPA lobby (ie assessed the promotion at its fair market value) it would be valued at a lot more than a million.  You cannot evade the IRS simply by making value transactions non-cash, James.  I might add that when WMF staff monopolized editing on blackout day they directed online traffic towards the "civil liberties" advocacy outfit the Electronic Frontier Foundation with whom the WMF arguably has a non-arms length relationship (a former EFF founder and chairman is on the WMF's Advisory Board).  Finally, the legal argument will only get you so far on Wikipedia.  Would it be illegal to flagrantly bias every article?  No.  Does that mean we should?--Brian Dell (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To Arzel: Charitable organizations are allowed to engage in what you choose to call "direct activism". The American Family Association is an example of a charitable organization that engages in activism on behalf of right-wing causes.  Churches have done many similar things without losing their 501(c)(3) status.  The only instances I've heard of where the IRS has suspended or revoked that status involved direct promotion of or opposition to political candidates.


 * To Brian Dell: Working for an organization like MoveOn does not put a black mark next to a person's name, such that he or she can never thereafter be hired by a charitable organization. Ann Coulter is free to express her admiration for Joe McCarthy but his precepts have generally not been adopted in American law.  If widespread ignorance about Exley's nefarious record troubles you, go ahead and publicize it.  (For my part, I know nothing about the political leanings of anyone connected with WMF except that Jimbo is a libertarian who voted for Bush.  My guess is that the editing community is in general ignorance of quite a few things about WMF's internal operations, not because of any cover-up but because most editors, like me, don't care.)  The EFF is, according to its website, itself a 501(c)(3), so I don't think the association with EFF can contaminate WMF's legal status.  As for your theory that appealing to the public constitutes lobbying, and that any such activity is limited to a million dollars' worth in cash or in-kind value, I don't think you've correctly summarized American tax law.  I direct your attention to the role of the LDS Church in repealing marriage equality in California, as set out in California Proposition 8.  It wouldn't surprise me if people offended by bigotry have sought to rescind the church's 501(c)(3) status because of its activism, but AFAIK no such effort has succeeded.


 * Finally, article bias is a completely separate issue and, in this context, a straw man. No one is saying that articles should be edited to adopt a particular opinion about SOPA.  It's like a newspaper printing an editorial for or against a controversial bill, while at the same time keeping its news columns free of bias by giving neutral reports about the bill.  This is standard journalistic practice, long predating the Internet.  For Wikipedia, with its decentralized, volunteer editing, this separation is even easier. JamesMLane t c 20:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll keep an eye out for the next "editorial". Just be advised that opposition to it may be more organized next time, despite not having a WMF to help coordinate us.  In the spirit of sportsmanship, congratulations to your team for its big Game 1 win.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel churlish about spurning a sincere compliment, but the fact is that I never bothered to weigh in on either side of the discussion about whether Wikipedia should participate in the blackout. So, while I appreciate your sportsmanship, I can't claim to have been on the winning team. JamesMLane t c 02:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Cat
Why do you call this "horrible POV pushing?" Peter King made 4 attempts to ban sharia law in congress. How is it POV to add a category saying so? Herman Cain made similar pledges during his early presidetial campaigns. Pass a Method  talk  16:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The category itself is a horrible POV push, the likes of which you rarely see. What exactly makes them "Activists"  Do you have some reliables sources that call them that, or is this your own original research?  Arzel (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the category nominate it for deletion or for renaming. Dont vent your anger at me! Btw, heres a ref for Herman Cain anti-sharia stance  Pass a Method   talk  18:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You created the category, if you have a problem with Cain, take it somewhere else. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC
Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. Be— —Critical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight
You are correct that is "OR" under standard interpretation to list the Google hits on FiveThirtyEight. My difficulty with the rule in this case is that I consider the information highly relevant to revealing the growing impact of the 538 site over the time, and the only way to gather that information that I am aware of is through contemporaneous tallies. Even if there were a way to get this information for "historical" dates, we would still have the same objection, that the information was "primary" data and not reported in a reputable secondary source. It's a pity.Mack2 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is already some information regarding the growth of 538, my question is if it was really that notable then there might be some reporting on the year to year growth. The impression I get from that section is that it is unusual or extraordinary growth and that somehow 538 is different than others.  Without some RS to make the case it is just us making the case.  Arzel (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to 538 discussion. I have more or less been updating the page to reflect changing methodology, new elections, and new topics. Since all of the information about methodology is draw from the blog, I treat it as factual. Although there is some criticism, which I see mainly on Twitter, and some of which is because people don't like the results of the projections (depending on whose ox is gored, I guess), afaik Silver shoots right down the middle since his reputation is based on getting things right, not on pleasing any interest group. One area where there has been some discussion within the blog and between blogs is on Silver's weighting of polls. There is a section devoted to that already in the article. Another subject on which there has been discussion and criticism relates to Silver's broad attack on macropolitical models of presidential elections. When I have some time I could add another "controversy" section. But I do not think it is doing readers a service to omit key information about the methodology or content.~Mack2~ 17:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To respond to your comment on my talk page, I don't frankly understand your rule that somehow reporting what the blog is doing must be derived mainly from secondary sources rather than the original source. The story of the blog is mainly its own content -- not "reaction shots" or "secondary summaries," which, however, are also included. I plan to continue to add some more of the controversies, because frankly that's that's the main way the blog interacts with other media and what you regard as "secondary" sources. And it does provide more balance. Your description of the content as advertising, however, is, in my view, reaching. None of it is advertising (and none, to my knowledge, is written by Nate Silver). It is just descriptive of what the blog has done (and in the last section how it has been received by broader audiences). But I think some of the flavor of "other" views of the blog can be gleaned from the interaction with interlocutors and other analysts, especially the controversies such as the one from a couple of years ago about weighting of polls and the one from last Fall regarding Ron Klain. The blog also takes on many mainstream economists and political scientists -- academics, for the most part -- which also reflects the style of the blog.~Mack2~ 00:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Santorum vs santorum
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Santorum vs santorum". Thank you. --The Gnome (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be— —Critical  22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Campaign for "romney" neologism
Hello Arzel. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Campaign for "romney" neologism, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because frankly neither the A7 tag or the "delete this activism" edit summary convince me that this would be an appropriate speedy deletion. So I've replaced your speedy tag with an AFD nomination so that the community can decide whether or not to delete it. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 16:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Political activities of Koch Family
Hi! Saw your edit. Left a note on the talk page. I'd like to improve wording so if you could help by identifying what I got wrong or non- factual from the source I'd really appreciate the help. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is implying that the "We" is AfP and that AfP has spent about $700K. We can't use that source to say that the Koch Family is spending $700K or that the Koch Family is directing AfP to spend $700k.  Koch never makes such a statement, therefore we cannot put those words into his mouth as having said them, or even implying them.  About the only thing we could say is that Stacy Singer stated that David Koch implied that he directed AfP to $700k towards Scott Walker's recall election.  It is a little undue weight to then use that opinion.  We really need a better source from the Koch's, and as a BLP we really need to be careful to not imply somebody said something that they did not explicitly say.  Arzel (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The source isn't "implying" anything. It states explicitly that Mr. Koch said that by "we" he meant AFP and that AFP had spent $700,000. That having been said I am not going to add this back. You have convinced me that this is too undue weight and I am seriously wondering why this article exists. It is BLP but isn't in the relevant biographies. It seems like a huge POV Fork. Am I crazy to be thinking that?Capitalismojo (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I will have to disgree a little bit with you on that, but you are right. It is a huge POV fork.  Welcome to WP. Arzel (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Reformat
I am reformatting these by decade. The templates are too big.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I must have caught it inbetween because when I looked at it the 2000-2025 category had all the information for the 2010-2019 category. Arzel (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing Breitbart
You discovered that the URL for one of the Breitbart videos had been changed. I corrected the URL for Campus Progress, pluralizing the word "article" to link to the updated video and commentary.

OTOH, I am baffled why you think I'm somehow coming to conclusions when I'm quoting the substance of the commentaries from Campus Progress and WND. Please read them yourself and see if my comments don't accurately reflect the reporting from the two widely disparate sources regarding the content and tenor of Breitbart's rants, even without considering the videos where he repetitively denounces the Occupy protesters at the top of his voice. Going to the videos, also, you can see the partly consumed glass of wine in his right hand and hear him being admonished, apparently by the WND reporter or perhaps by another ideological or actual colleague, to put it down before his intended proximate confrontation. In response he launches into a belligerent defense of why he shouldn't have to be concerned about how the appearance of his drinking might detract from his message. Watch and listen to his long interview immediately following the confrontation where he was removed by hotel security.

You were the second person to revert my posting. Please review the material before you once again engage in what appears to be vandalism. Also, I wrote this to the first poster, on the same subject. He had questioned the title of the subheading which has existed for some time, and suggested that I "go somewhere else to" post the information I provided. Activist (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Both sources I quoted, Campus Progress and WND (World Net Daily) contain graphic descriptions and characterizations of Breitbart's behavior and come to conclusions. Both videos amply document his behavior. Are you suggesting that other intermediaries are needed to verify what your own or anyone else's eyes will have to acknowledge when reading the reports or watching the videos? If you need to defend or praise Breitbart, "you should probably go somewhere else to" do it. Wikipedia's definition of the word "controversy" is Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus – "turned in an opposite direction," from contra – "against" – and vertere – to turn, or versus (see verse), hence, "to turn against." The title of the section is not mine but is of long standing on the Breitbart page. Activist (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Again you referred to my action as vandalism. You need to WP:AGF. You also need to read up on WP:OR which you clearly have not done, and apparently do not understand.  It does not matter what you think it clear from the video, you cannot use it to present your opinion of what transpired.  Arzel (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Antecendent
The antecedent of "it" is "body", which is commonly treated as neuter, whether the gender is known or not. Using "him" for "body" sounds strange. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It may sound strange, but "him" is the proper term for a previously defined person for whom the gender is known. Arzel (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The person is not the antecedent here. The body is. And bodies are treated as neuter in English. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Give me a break. it is clear that the person is the antecedent.

"'It' (including 'its' and 'itself') is the most common and only third person, singular English gender-neutral pronoun; however, it is used only as a dummy pronoun in various impersonal constructions and to refer to abstractions, places, inanimate objects or materials, and non-human life of low order or unknown gender. The plural of 'it'—'they'— is already used in all cases as a plural gender-neutral pronoun. The word 'it', however, has an extremely impersonal connotation, even offensive, in common usage and is rarely used in English to refer to an unspecified human being or person of unknown gender. This is because the word 'it' connotes that the person being specified is inferior to a person or is an object."

Arzel (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Fox News
You seem to be very defensive of the fox news page, you deleted my argument with the excuse that wikipedia was not a forum, but yet my point still stands, even if it can be offensive to the biased viewers of fox news you cant deny that there are objective and verifiable proofs that show that fox news is biased and even makes up news, I just would like to know if theres anything you that can say to make my argument invalid, its based on empirical proof, not on opinion.

And as I have said before denying facts just because they aren't appealing to some people makes this wiki biased not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.131.161.154 (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't like it when people use WP as a place to push their particular activism. Go look at Politifacts collection of MSNBC "false" statements or any of the other news organizations.  They all make them.  You and your cohorts seem to be unable to understand the number relative to the total number of statements that are made.  Thousands upon thousands of statements are made every year.  Some of these statements are going to be false simply by random chance.  Your collection of statements doesn't prove anything, other than you have a bunch of free time on your hands and an extreme dislike of FNC.
 * Your claim of empirical proof is meaningless unless you have some hypothesis to test it against. Your apparent hyposthesis is that FNC is significantly more biased or makes significantly more false statements than other news organizations.  Unless you can find some research that actually backs up this claim than your list of empirical evidence is little more than unconstructive ranting against FNC.  Arzel (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Although the fact that Politifacs has chosen Fox News conservative propaganda as a lie of the year twice says a lot about the amount of bias in the network, comparing Fox News to other channels is dangerously subjective so I wont object about that, but my main point is that there should be no doubt about the nature of the network and neither should it be on the Fox News wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.131.161.154 (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean crap, and since you wish to view FNC in a vacumn you really don't even care about the bias of other organizations. You see only one avenue of bias.  Such a view is highly hypocritical.  Arzel (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So what you are essentially saying is that two wrongs make a right?, I have tolerance to bias and lies but I have grown tired of it, I live on a country where all politicians are corrupted and the ones that aren't get killed by the "narcos" there, everyone shut ups if they witness a crime or if they don't some money will make them to, all the media is controlled by the government and even if the political parties aren't the same as in the US, all of them have a conservative nature, so please don't tell me I do not see bias on other channels, If I seem to have a extreme dislike for the network is because I am tired of seeing even more than I am used to.


 * If you see conservative bias in everything, than you are are on the extreme left. Just watch Current and you will be happy.  Well maybe not happy since Olberman doesn't ever seem to be happy, but at least you will only have to listen to your point of view.  Arzel (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Counter Data with Data
Hi Arzel, You appear to be a very bright person who is extremely familiar with Wikipedia. I think it would enhance the coverage on the hydraulic fracturing and pipeline pages if you would add information from reliable sources (rather than deleting it) that you've read that have led you to hold your views on these issues. That way readers would have a broad range of coverage on which to base their views.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring report
You have been reported for WP:EWing on Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy; please consider self-reverting. AV3000 (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck with apologies - sincerely, because I really don't like making mistakes. AV3000 (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Arzel (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of sources and sourced material; addition of unsourced statements
Arzel, your repeated deletion of sourced material from several pages and addition of unsourced statements is not constructive. I see that you have a history of WP infractions and assume that you don't want to add another. Several different editors have warned you politely at this point. You may want to rethink the way you contribute to Wikipedia. This is a scientific, scholarly resource, not a talk show blog.Smm201`0 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand that WP is not a place for you to promote your point of view. You seem to think that if something is sourced than it is fair game to add without an understanding of WP:WEIGHT.  You don't seem to have a clue about NPOV.  I suggest you stop using WP to promote your point of view and please tell me what the "Halliburton Rule" has to do with the PWD.  Also, please don't threaten me again.  Arzel (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Disruptive editing
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Rush
Please see my reply on my talk page. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. When you recently edited Buffett Rule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please rethink your Dan Savage reversion
Here.

Fox News, whether you like it or not, IS a reliable source. The situation was so egregious that the two major groups behind the conference had to issue a joint statement to members about Savage's remarks. Need more sources? Take your pick. There's even a pro-gay source in there for you. Now, is that good enough for you to revert your censorship? 67.233.241.169 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You have to deal with realities here. I don't agree with Savage's methods in the least, but you are going to need some aditional sourcing to provide evidence that this was something that has some long lasting impact.  Now it may be that this does rise to that occasion, but right now it is mearly a news blip.  Wait and see how this affects his supposed anti-bullying message and if there is any fallout regarding his "It get's better" campaign.  He has made a big deal out of that campaign, and it is possible that this affects it in some manner.  If that happens there will be RS's to back that up.  Pushing it now, however, is only going to get you blocked.  Arzel (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus
Really, sorry for that, I really should have assumed better faith. S Æ don talk 22:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries, things can get heated. It is easy to assume the worst and I know I have done it as well.  Arzel (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning
You are being warned about violating 3RR on the hydraulic fracturing page. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:AN3. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama response
Hey, since you were one of the editors that wanted the dog eating thing included may I suggest that you agree with me on this? There's no sense in arguing about the past consensus because it was another context of the same topic. As it stands I don't think I have a problem with this addition and have no current plans to oppose the inclusion, but I think that if this becomes an argument over what happened a few weeks ago it's going to turn into another shitstorm and the content will probably end up being removed. S Æ don talk 22:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to assume some consensus becuase disscussion had largely stopped during the AfD. I don't see how you can artfully justify the complete omission of this part of the story since they are connected at the leg.  Arzel (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Seamus incident dispute resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Seamus incident". Thank you. HHIAdm (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident
Hello Arzel. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Not an attack page, although it has much room for improvement. See Seamus incident for a similar article.''' Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently you did not even read the article. It is a pure attack page for political purposes.  But I suppose if you think that WP should be used for political attacks it is worth keeping...or if you think WP should be a newspaper.  Arzel (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Attack page" doesn't mean a page with a disparaging subject, an attack page would be something like "Mitt Romney is an asshole." Something is never an attack page by WP's standards if it's based on sourcing but happens to be negative for the subject, so that's why the CSD was denied.  It's unlikely to be kept at AFD, but not because it's an attack page but because it's not a notable topic imo. "[...]"attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." Definitely did not meet that criteria.  S Æ don talk  00:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I would have not used "attack page" if I did not feel strongly it was such. Although not titled as such, the basic premise of the page is "Mitt Romney was an asshole when he was a teenager".  Arzel (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

NYT/WaPo "centrist"
Thank you for your note on my talk page. I agree with your last sentence. If editors are claiming that the NYT/WaPo are "centrist", a favorable resolution does indeed seem a distant prospect.

I am wondering if the issue of partisan bias of sources can somehow be dealt with on a Wikipedia-wide level. I have run into that same brick wall on other articles. A Wikipedia-wide statement that certain sources are reliable, but partisan, would be helpful. Evidence such as the history of Presidential endorsements can be brought into play.

At present, I am unaware of any appropriate forum for raising such issues. William Jockusch (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The quick answer is 'No'. It has been brought up before, but in general those sources are still viewed as reliable sources of information.  The problem is that most most newspapers lean to the left, and as a result you have bias in presentation.  It is mostly easily seen in that stuff that is negative towards the left is under-reported and stuff negative towards the right is over-reported.  For example, during GWB, the price of gas was a regular headline even though the price of gas was on average much lower than what it has been for Obama, but there has been very little reported on the price of gas in his four years.  The wars in Iraq and Afganistan were a nightly hit on GWB, but are hardly mentioned for Obama even though deaths in Afganistan have increased substantially under Obama.  The Tea Party was derided without exception as being a far right movement of racist extremists.  The Occupy movement was hyped daily as a peacful collection of independents, until they became violent after which they have been almost completely ignored.  The world is what is presented to you.  Most RS present a world symathetic to the left and demonize the right, and WP reflects that world.  What I find most suprising, is that even with all of the advantages that the Democrats have in the media they still have a hard time getting enough people to give them complete control of the government.  Just imagine how things would be if the majority of the media was truely neutral.  Arzel (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding Further Reading to Hydraulic Fracturing Page
Arzel,

Please do not flame.

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt as I do not know you, but your immediate undos of my posts appear to be quite aggressive. And your comments would be considered quite rude if said face to face., i.e. "What part of WP:EL do you seem not to be able to grasp?"

Feedback is great, I appreciate it, but skip the attitude.

I am re-entering the Cornell University Press title Under the Surface (this time without the author's webpage as requested). It is an essential resource for anyone interested in understanding the subject, offering an unbiased and balanced approach to the subject.

Thank you for your understanding,

OpenMindOpenMind1 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I made a simple revert the first time, which you simply ignored, so please don't get upset if I was more explicit on my second revert. Also, why are you using two accounts?  Stick with one.  Arzel (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Cory Booker DRN discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Cory Booker". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 03:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

D Quayle
Hi - there is a report about your template addition at the D Qualyle BLP - BLPN - thanks - You  really  can  20:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

LPOV page
Following Lionel's suggestion, I just created [||a page on LPOV]. I'm sure it can be improved, starting with the location -- he may have meant the project, not the portal.William Jockusch (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My link from here is not working. But it is linked at the bottom of the conservatism portal for now.William Jockusch (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Political activities of the Koch family shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
 * It seems from the editing history of that article that you are warring just as much as Azrel might be, the difference being that the WP:BURDEN is on you to take the issue to the talk page once your edit has been contested. You've now been reverted by two editors so it'd be best if you followed WP:BRD.   S Æ don talk  22:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He actually has been reverted by 3 editors, and he is accusing me of edit warring as well when I only reverted him once and have discussed it on the talk page. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to the defense of your tag-team partner is back on the Talk Page in question. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are going to act like a child I will start to treat you like one. Arzel (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and adopt an attitude of good faith. Going over your contributions to Koch related articles leads me to think that the banhammer is going to be swinging towards your direction if you don't adopt a more collegial attitude. Constantly referring to people with whom you disagree in a disparaging manner, calling them tag-teamers, assuming bad faith, etc, is not appropriate on Wikipedia where we have a higher standard of conduct and behavior than most places online.  Please see WP:CIVIL.  Lastly, if Azrel or anyone else wanted to get you blocked for edit warring they could do so right now by simply filing a 5 minute report at WP:3RRN - you are the only person who has breached 3RR and so it's incredibly disingenuous of you to be leaving warnings or accusing other editors of edit warring. You're in a hole, stop digging.   S Æ don talk  23:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It took a little longer than 5 minutes, but I went ahead and filled out the report at WP:3RRN. I will be out of the house and away from the computer for a while, so hopefully that will stop his disruptive editing for now. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family". Thank you.

Reverts
Hi there. If you don't like my edits that's absolutely fine, but instead of doing total reverts, how about some suggestions for improvements instead? For example, my addition to the Matt Dean page was simply reverted, whereas you might have either made a modification yourself to fix the issues that you see, or asked me to make modifications based on your observations. I don't mind re-writing; I'm a tech writer by trade. Your total reverts seem a little harsh to me.Dougom (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrea Mitchell
I have filed a complaint against SummerPhD for edit warring. You were mentioned as having been the target of her criticism. Your comments would be welcome.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. μηδείς (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

New York Times calling
Hi Arzel, I write about Wikipedia often, and, for a while now, have been reporting on how Wikipedia manages to reach a consensus for political articles. I am focusing on the political candidates, but articles like the political activities of the Koch family are relevant as well. Will you have time to speak via e-mail or the phone on the topic? I'd be interested in getting your perspective on things. Looking forward to it. noam at nytimes dot com chomsky1 19:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chomsky1 (talk • contribs)

4 proposals
In order to stop edit warring on the Mitt Romney dog incident page, I restored a version of the article from of few days ago, and issued 4 proposals based on changes editors were trying to implement. Feel free to comment. Talk:Mitt_Romney_dog_incident 71.125.74.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't bite the newcomers
I understand your frustration, but please try to take a less aggressive tone with new editors. This comment was particularly nonconstructive. Arbor8 (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * When new users are directed to come here and insert crap it needs to be agressivly addressed. Arzel (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You can be aggressive without being insulting, Arzel. For example, terms like "crap" are pretty insulting.  Your opinion that something is "crap" doesn't make them objective crap, if you see what I mean.  Your tone, combined with some of your actions (total reverts rather than suggestions for improvement, for example) are, as Arbor8 notes, not very constructive.  Just my take, of course. Dougom (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Noted, but I stand by my statements. Editors were directed to come to WP and add crap, call it what you want.  Arzel (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Thomas Sowell". Thank you. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Need input
I was browsing pages using the images of Mitt Romney and I'm noticing that there's this page Yasin al-Qadi which there's been so many edits by 1 user which gives me the impression of heavy undue weight. ViriiK (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "War on Women". Thank you. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sowell Revert due to no consensus
You recently made a disruptive edit which went against Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Please don't do that again. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Considering there was no concensus for including in the first place I find your message a little insulting. Arzel (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Chick-Fil-A editors Request debate
There has been an edit request so the Chick-Fil-A debate you where a party is now in a differant section so your prevoius opinions might not be factored into the editors request for dispute resolution debate thought you should know and check it out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chick-fil-A#Edit_request_on_25_July_2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algonquin7 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
You're guilty of edit-warring on this article, including a clear violation of WP:3RR. What do you want to do about it? Hint: I can report you or you can revert. Think fast. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and report me returning a reliably sourced statement which apparently was removed by you in an attempt to get me blocked. I will not be threatened by people like you.  By the way I made 2 reverts and then added additional information, which you reverted and then I returned that information, thus three reverts.  Furthermore, your battleground attitude is far more likely to get you blocked in the process.  Arzel (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your obstinate and belligerent response. I will bookmark it for later use against you, as evidence of bad faith. Also, I'll revert your change whenever I feel like it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So you are going to revert me so you can try to get me blocked, not because you have a reason to remove the reliably sourced information? Is that really the road you wish to travel?  04:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't care if you get blocked. I don't care if I do. Blocking is stupid.
 * My goal is to have good articles, and this means reverting bad changes by people like you. Your unbalanced, selectively-sourced change is a fine example of that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please define bad in that context. Are you saying that FactCheck.org is not a reliable source?  The WaPo source included FC in it's summary, and that was ok, but somehow including the FC source making the specific statement is considere a selectively-sourced change and the anti-thesis to a good article?  Arzel (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Go read the talk page. It's all there. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So you don't have an answer. Fine.  Arzel (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You still won't discuss the article in good faith on the talk page. You prefer to just edit-war. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How can you make such a stupid statement when anyone can see that not only am I discussing it, I discussed it prior to you making any comment here, and you have yet to respond to my comment on the talk page. Your attempt here to try and make a WP:POINT is a form of disruptive editing.  Your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour here is annoying to say the least, and I suggest you alter your approach dramatically.  Arzel (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides being guilty of everything you accuse me of, your participation is simply not productive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have yet to comment on that section and you come here again to make a false accusation against me? You should stop digging that hole you are currently in.  Arzel (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

hey, Arzel: Relax... take it easy and remember that this is a collaborative project and we need to get along. Otherwise it becomes tedious and the fun leaves us. If you are interested in fighting politics, maybe join a volunteer group or something. Cwobeel (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record
Just to let you know that in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign article I have noted your two reverts on a relevant citation from The Telegraph here and here. I was surprised to see you revert it that second time, as when I reinstated it I'd written in the edit summary that the relevant part of the story was "in summary at end": i.e., where the Telegraph story says:

"A trail of diplomatic blunders has damaged Mr Romney’s stature on a tour that was designed to showcase his foreign policy credentials ahead of November’s US presidential election. In Britain, Mr Romney, who ran the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ruffled feathers by questioning London’s security readiness for the Games."

I'm sorry I didn't indicate this more clearly, and perhaps you didn't get beyond the headline and the first paragraph of the story. I'm not going to reinstate it again, since it's not absolutely crucial that the citation goes in - though it demonstrates how even the UK's most right-wing quality paper has reported Romney's handling of the Olympic question. But I want you to be quite aware that I was, and am, acting in good faith since we shall no doubt have to collaborate on this and other articles. Alfietucker (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would question the existance of a "right-wing" paper in the UK. It may not be stridently left like most of the papers in the UK, but it is certainly not on Romney's side in the US.  With it's anonymous quoting on the Anglo-Saxon hit on Romney, it is hard to make an argument that they even lean conservative from a US perspective.  Regardless, that article is not specifically about the olympics issue.  There is simply no reason to use sources which are tangential to the section you are trying to source when a) other sources exists and b) it is already sourced multiple times.  The appearance is that you are trying to insert a source primarily because of its attacking nature against Romney.  Arzel (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It may appear so to you, but questioning whether The Telegraph is a right-wing paper and to say it necessarily has to be "on Romney's side" to qualify as a right-wing paper is, with due respect, extremely POV. In any case, your claims do not in any way disprove its status as the UK's most right-wing quality paper and the point I'm making, which is that neither left- and right-wing press in the UK reported Romney's comments as being appropriate. Alfietucker (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Kudos

 * Thanks! Arzel (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Being discussed?
So discuss it, rather than use the revert button. What kind of behavior is that? And you have the chutzpah to call others POV pushers....? Cwobeel (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * When you see me trying to push political points of view on the Obama article feel free to call me on it. When you see me trying to add fluff to Romney or Ryan feel free to call me on it.  When I see editors who only seem able to look for negative or political talking points to add to their political opponents I will call them on it.  You have been called.  BTW, I discussed immediately after my revert.  Arzel (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your thinking is obfuscated by your own POV. I don't give a hoot about Obama, and I am jot promoting any viewpoints in particular. I am bringing good sources and notable points of view to improve upon what others have done. What have you done to improve these articles besides use the revert button? Go do something useful, it is more rewarding than being pissed off and bitter. Cwobeel (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your actions speak stronger than your words. Your edit history is almost entirely related to attacking Romney, and your first edits where to push the Democratic talking point that Romeny was still listed as CEO of Bain.  Most of your other edits have also been to push Democratic talking points.  You tell me who is pushing a point of view.  Arzel (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Arzel, I would suggest that you remove the plank from your own eye before pointing out the mote in Cwobeel's. We've been asking you not to be so quick to revert for some time now, and you've ignored us. This is problematic. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to use WP as your political tool, that is problematic. Arzel (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If my edits are "democratic talking points" so be it. I am not a democrat, I do not vote in the USA, and I edit these articles because I like the subject. Nothing more. Cwobeel (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you. My entire professional career has been careful observation in order to understand the relationship between events.  The statistical probability of you being otherwise is near zero.  Arzel (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I only can say what is true: I am not a democrat, I am not a citizen of the USA, and I therefore I do not vote in the USA. Cwobeel (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But I can assume, by my powers of perception, that you are a registered Republican and you vote in this upcoming election. :) Cwobeel (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am utterly amazed at the number of fiercly liberal editors that claim to both be not Democrats and not from the US. I am actually independent and have voted for people of both major parties and independents like Perot and Ventura (who while has turned crazy was actually not a bad govenor).  Arzel (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I was about to do the same thing, but John D. beat me to it. I wholeheartedly endorse. Congrats, Arzel, keep up the great work. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Arzel (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks.
Frankly, removing my legitimate warning was not a great thing for you to do, but it's allowed, on the theory that you are thereby acknowledging that you read it. However, the edit comment was "POV Pusher", which is a personal attack. Now, some people might argue in your defense that it's "only" a violation of WP:CIVIL and not WP:NPA while others wouldn't. That's a fine point for WikiLawyers, and therefore of no interest to me. What is important to me is that you show at least the bare minimum of respect and decorum. This includes avoiding insults such as "POV pusher". Do we understand each other? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

But when you say it Still it apparently is just fine? "He doesn't seem to understand how biased he is, though. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)" Just food for thought. Viewmont Viking (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "POV pusher" is a slur. "He doesn't seem to understand how biased he is, though" is an observation. The former is intended to be insulting. The second is neutral. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are assuming intent. "He doesn't understand simple English" (referring to you) is also an observation, which you've taken as an insult.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Allow me to share an observation: "Arthur Rubin often makes strained, implausible arguments". I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion ignore the troll, go about your business  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 11:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Still, When you return a highly POV graph to the article claiming concensus when none exists, and not even joining the discussion on the talk page which I started I will call you a POV pushing activist. Arzel (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
Per WP:ENC, I undid the deletion of Mitt Romney's tax returns once it became clear per the edits to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 that it was never about WP:POVFORK but rather a concerted effort to undermine the goals of the project. I stand by my edit. -- Kendrick7talk 04:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it is nice that you believe that. Unfortunately for WP to work at all, we have to agree to some level of guidelines and rules.  You did not agree with the outcome, fine, that is your prerogative, however that does not give you the right to unilaterally undue a process which the rest of us have agreed to follow.  There is a process which you can follow called deletion review.  Arzel (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please engage in discussions...
... rather than just delete outright content that is well sourced and relevant. It will make it much more fun of you do so, rather than using the revert button without consideration for the work I am doing, as you did here. Cwobeel (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You mean like your attempt to cram the whole section into the article against the AfD and without any reasonable sense of concensus? I have engaged in the discussion, so don't give me that tripe.  Arzel (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you pay a little more attention, you will see that I have abandoned that avenue, and instead, I have started afresh, researching new content and new sources. So, yes, I give you that tripe. Diff: Cwobeel (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that you have started a whole new approach to add a bunch of undue weight POV crap to the article. Arzel (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Facts are not POV. Opinions are. All I have added are facts that are 100% not disputed. But I think that your approach is WP:DONTLIKEIT, and one can't argue with that besides casting a very negative assessment of your behavior. Cwobeel (talk)
 * I am not sure where you developed such a strange understanding of POV. Arzel (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here in Wikipedia, of course. Where else? Wikipedia has a peculiar way to describe this in its WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY policy pages. Cwobeel (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Verify is a neccessary condition for inclusion, but not everything that is verifiable can or should be included. Such and article would be thousands of pages long.  You seem to be very interested in adding "facts" that push the democratic talking points with little interest in balance or NPOV.  You seem to have a severe misunderstanding that if something passes Verify it automatically passes NPOV, it does not.  Arzel (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really.... (a) I base my edits on my understanding of NPOV, which is different than just the concept "neutral"." Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.. This means that your point of view (or mine) is irrelevant. What we need to consider is representing fairly what has been published. It is in that vein that I edit. You, on the other hand, as expressed in your talk page and in many interactions, seem to be editing with counteracting what you believe to be your opponents point of view, from a partisan perspective, and that is what I find objectionable. Have you heard of WP:ENEMY? Try it, it is liberating... Cwobeel (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand, but that is understandable since you have only been an editor for a couple of months. You seem to be stuck on issues which are News spikes, giving them undue weight in the context of the entire article.  A single issue which recieves a ton of stories over a short period of time and then fades quickly can easily overwhelm an article written with a historical context in mind.  This can be easy to do when news outlets all jump on the same story or use the same newsfeed to promote a story.  I only counteract those that are obvious.  You are a new editor, and yet your work over the past couple of months has been quite extensive and focused on negative aspects of Mitt Romney and the GOP in general.  After you have been here long enough you see this to fit a very specific pattern, which you seem to fit perfectly.  Perhaps you truely are a very good intentioned editor without any bias and are not here to mearly trumpet Democratic talking points in order to hinder Romney, but history is not on your side, and your doggedness on Romney and his taxes is a huge red flag.  Arzel (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I find politics, and specifically the contortions of the Republican party in this election cycle to be really fascinating. It seems that the US-centric view of these articles is one of the problems... In any case, I understand your point and why your perception of my contributions is what it is. Hopefully, that perception will change. Cwobeel (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey
Please go easy on me with the coatracking charges. Much of the material you deleted was in the "Business career" section of the main Mitt Romney article. Anyway, I have posed a question for you at Talk:Business career of Mitt Romney. I hope we can discuss it a little more, either here or there. Thanks. P.S. You seem to have reverted before going to see my comments at the article talk page.71.88.58.198 (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey again
I was wondering what you generally think about Wikipedia. Do you think it's structurally flawed? What would be the main reforms you'd support? I hope it's okay to ask. I've admired your work at Wikipedia for a long long time, during which you doubtless have gained some insight about the matter. Cheers. (Incidentally, I'm also IP 71.88.58.198.)64.134.98.120 (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on what you think of what Wikipedia should be. My personal belief is that it should be an online version of an encyclopedia and written in a way that is similar to an encyclopedia.  For some types of articles Wipipedia has been successful.  For most biographies, WP is a dismal failure presenting a biased picture of almost every single person with a bio.  Structurally it is flawed in the manner in which articles are created for people.  You have probably heard the statement "The only good news is bad news" and it is displayed in all of its glory on WP.  If a guy tweet naked pictures of himself accidentally to the world, that news is reported as the biggest story in the world, but if that same person does something good or just average it is almost never reported.  Top stories in the news about people are almost always about the bad things that they have done, or people critical of anything that they have done.  About the only time you hear of anything positive is in response to something bad.


 * Since WP articles are based off WP:V and WP:RS and guided by WP:NPOV the bad almost always outweighs the good. As a direct result articles almost always suffer WP:RECENT issues related to a News Spike resutling in hugely biased sections within articles.  Throw in a political election and these problems are magnified ten fold.  So, for articles which are largely historic, WP works well, and is structurally sound because recent issues are unlikely to cause V, RS, and NPOV to fail, or at least fail easily.  For newer issues and bios of currently living people, WP is structurally flawed.  Some of this could be mitigated, but unfortunately commone sense is not in great supply here.  Best, Arzel (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Arzel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Paul Ryan and speech reception. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
You're at 3RR now after treading the line at a number of articles in the past few days, and I would advise that you stop reverting now and gain consensus before making changes. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Give me a break you pov pushing warrior. Arzel (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, als Still would say "You are a liar" since I am not even close to 3RR on anything over the past few days. Arzel (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion
I have mentioned you at ANI here.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

About your revert
I took a look at the revert you made a few moments ago at 'Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012' and if you leave the Cairo and Benghazi material the way you intend for it to be, it makes little sense for it to be in an article about Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. Obviously Mitt Romney's campaign made statements about the situation, and while I agree with you that it is a developing situation, it didn't stop politically-motivated and attacking statements from being made by them. If they feel compelled to mention it, Wikipedia shouldn't avoid mentioning it either. -- Avanu (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! The discussion concerns the Christian right. Psalm84 (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Article probation on Paul Ryan
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Paul Ryan, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.'' --v/r - TP 00:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 is, too. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes and I removed information which violated several policies, do you have a problem violating policies on WP? Arzel (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney
Let's continue this at the talk page. Superm401 - Talk 15:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Your a little quick on the trigger
No "Point of View Pushing" by me. You might do better to WP:AGF, but that's your call. I'm assuming the best about you. Additionally, the citations in Mitt Romney dog incident‎ are poorly formatted (particularly author's names are just thrown in). We could all work on that. 7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 23:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * perhaps, but including a book which does nothing but attack Romeny in order to capitalize on the incident while removing some EL which were not does not appear very neutral, especially since they had been in the article for some time. Arzel (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * They are all still there. The book is on this exact subject, and this is not an endorsement.
 * Just as there is no endorsement of the rest of "Further reading" which seems to be a list put in by the Romney campaign. But we are not here to stifle opposing views, so they are there. Or they've become references. SAUCE <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 23:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Capital gains tax in the United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please archive once in a while
This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Beeblebrox (talk)|