User talk:Hal Cross

Do not edit my talk page
You placed a comment on my talk page and I removed it. You reverted my edit. Please stop this behavior. Please do not revert any my on changes on my own talk page. This is not acceptable. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 04:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I added extra information to the prior edit. I wish to inform you of what I see as your unconstructive and distruptive behaviour on the AFA article. Hal Cross 06:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care about your complaints. Do not fill up my talk page with your claims that I am unconstructive and distruptive, when it is you who is being unconstructive. Thank you very much. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 06:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied to you on your talkpage. Hal Cross 06:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not comment on my talk page. I don't wish to dicuss anything with you. Thank you very much. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 06:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back, Hal. Glad to see that after gaining all that experience in content disputes, you used it to make constructive contributions to a wide variety of Wikipedia articles. In the interests of continuing that positive outlook, how about you engage in the discussion instead of just edit warring, and perhaps even make some arguments rather than appealing to an invalid interpretation of policy? Thanks, Orpheus 02:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, my webconnection was down for a while. Its fine to make reversions where they are obvious and if you are not repeating the same editsummary. Now, how about us removing all those controversial categories we nicely allowed you to keep a few weeks ago? It can happen really easily. We have consensus based recommendations on our side. Hal Cross 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to your message on my talk page, all I am interested in is discussing the content of the article. Your empty comments like "It can happen really easily" are a complete waste of time. Seriously - try actually discussing the content rather than throwing around who said what and where. You posted on WP:AN/I about this sort of thing and it was resoundingly ignored. Doesn't that tell you something? Orpheus 16:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with me personally just say it. I am simply referring to WP policies and recommendations, and stating what seems to be inevitable about what happens with categories. Controversial cats tend to get ditched, and for good NPOV based reason. Its just one of those things. Hal Cross 16:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with you personally. Your reading of Wikipedia policy is flawed and your approach to community-based discussion is unhelpful, but none of that affects how I view you personally. You need to show that the categories are controversial - you can't just say that they are. Orpheus 17:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Orpheus, you seem to be sending mixed messages. You seemed not to want deja vu on the AFA talkpage. But above you want me to go over the same ground and show what must be the most obviously controversial subject in the article. I don't mind, but you may appear to be quite vexatious to other editors. So what do you want, to revisit or not? Hal Cross 18:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No mixed messages, it's quite straightforward. I'm happy to discuss the content of articles. I'm sick and tired of your continuous posts to the talk pages that contain no actual discussion of content. The deja vu came about because you seem to be up to "adopt air of injured innocence", which if I recall correctly is the second or third step of the approach you took last time. If you're prepared to discuss the merits or otherwise of the Homophobia category, then that's great. If you insist on saying things that belong in a spaghetti western like "Now, how about us removing all those controversial categories we nicely allowed you to keep a few weeks ago? It can happen really easily" then it's very difficult to have a constructive discussion. Orpheus 18:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Orpheus, you don't seem to understand the situation you are in. You negotiated for compromise for a few weeks, and now that the page is unlocked and new editors seem to be helping you with reversions, you have broken the compromise. I am offering you a chance to reconsider. I don't think I could put it more plainly than I have above. Please reconsider. There are other editors on the article who are pretty upset you seem to be wasting everyone's time. I am remaining patient about it because I think that is what is required. Continue to throw accusations if you wish. But editors are quite well directed to remove any controversial categories, and cat disputes show that any disputed cats tend to stay gone long term. Hal Cross 03:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(od) What are you talking about? This is a total non sequitur. Wikipedia isn't a daggers-drawn, pistols at 10 paces adversarial forum. It's a community. The way it works is that people advance an argument to support their point of view, the community considers it and the argument which sways enough people (not necessarily everybody) ends up being considered consensus. It's not treaty negotiation. Nobody ever agreed to "If we can have X, then Y can go".

If you go back through the discussion, you'll find that the homophobia category was removed because it was a subcategory of Discrimination. It's frowned upon to have a category and its subcategory in the same article. As a result, homophobia was removed. Now the article isn't in the discrimination category, that reason is invalid. I don't see any other reason to remove it.

Some specific points: "I am offering you a chance to reconsider" - what gives you the right to make that offer? It's not your article, just like it's not mine. You aren't the gatekeeper who decides what goes in and what doesn't, and taking that role as you seem to want to is not a helpful position.

"cat disputes show that any disputed cats tend to stay gone long term" - I disagree, and there's a lot of articles out there that support that position. Perhaps if you edited more widely you would have noticed that.

"There are other editors on the article who are pretty upset you seem to be wasting everyone's time" - That's a ridiculous comment.

"new editors seem to be helping you with reversions, you have broken the compromise" - You don't appear to be paying very close attention to the page history.

As a suggestion, try advancing arguments of your own on the article talk page rather than making nonsense comments like "I'll check through the literature". It's the text equivalent of nodding sagely in a bar, and just as useful. Orpheus 08:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm being patient with you because I believe that is the most productive way forward. I am explaining what I see as the situation as clearly as I can. I know you disagree with me, but I am looking for points of agreement here. Timing is an issue. Exhausting editor's patience is really something to be avoided. You seem to have dismissed the possibility of the previous compromise that took editors time, patience and a lot of generosity to achieve. If you begin to show willingness to work back towards compromise then I believe things may improve for you. I'm content to wait a while. Hal Cross 09:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility
Excuse me? I don't see how my statement was "cutting". I've been ignoring your continuing snide remarks about how I'm supposedly pushing an agenda, and suppressing information, and the other accusations you keep alluding to, and you're calling me uncivil? I find it interesting that if you go back over the talk page history, the only time progress is ever made on disputes is when everybody, on all sides, totally ignores you. That suggests to me that your method of dispute resolution is combatative and unhelpful. Orpheus 00:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Orpheus, your edits are definitely suppressing information. There is no two ways about it. You repeatedly remove sourced and relevant facts about the views of the AFA. I am referring to your edits and not to you. However, you have cast aspersions by implying I am homophobic. Please stop being so personal. I have to talk about the homosexual agenda on the AFA article because its core to the subject. I am working on getting the article into shape, and your personalizing is highly unconstructive. Please be civil. Hal Cross 02:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Please cease the edit warring on this page WAVY 10 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

AFA
please participate here.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure Jaakobou. Thanks in advance for your input. Hal Cross 11:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor review
If you're serious about wanting feedback on your editing, make a post at WP:ER and ask for some. I think you'd benefit from the experience. Orpheus 06:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for higher level information. Admin coaching may be more appropriate. It involves more problem solving with controversial articles and issues. Hal Cross 06:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Admin coaching? Go for it. Here's the link: WP:ADMINCOACH. I think the response you get will be an extremely useful guide for you. Orpheus 07:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I had it already thanks. Hal Cross 07:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you waiting for, then? You want feedback on your editing, you know where to ask for it - go for it! Be bold! Orpheus 09:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm already getting feedback thanks. Hal Cross 11:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Who from? You seemed very keen to get feedback on your editing style, but I don't see where you've posted in the many forums and sources of assistance available to you on Wikipedia. Orpheus 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been requesting admin advice since I came here. Its often very helpful. They seem to be quite happy to be contacted using a direct approach. Hal Cross 17:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? How do you request that, because I don't see any such posts in your contributions. I'm curious to know what method you use, and who "they" might be. Orpheus 17:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We are allowed to email each other to seek advice, to offer advice, and so on. Are you asking me to give you a list of each and every experienced editor and admin I have contacted in the past months? Hal Cross 18:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but one or two representatives would be a helpful resource. It's always nice to expand one's list of useful contacts. It's somewhat against the spirit of Wikipedia to get advice via email rather than on talk pages where everybody can benefit from it. Orpheus 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I just pick any. Their standards are pretty good as far as I can tell, and you can always get a second opinion. Hal Cross 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

AFA
I had a glance through and didn't see anything too obviously wrong, but I'll do a full copyedit soon. I got distracted by a friend needing help with his computer. Adam Cuerden talk 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks much Adam. The article has long term problems, so no rush. Hal Cross 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible Boycott Page
I will begin work on the AFA Boycott page probably on Friday (lightest day I have in college). You can look for it then on my user page at that point (it will have ana sterisk beside it noting it is in progress). God bless. WAVY 10 22:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks much WavyHal Cross 02:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette
The external opinion you've been talking about for ages and never yet asked for: Wikiquette alerts Orpheus 09:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I never asked for your opinion. I was interested in outside views. Hal Cross 09:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I requested! If I just wanted to give you my opinion I would have posted it here (and, by the way, not bothered in the first place). Orpheus 09:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion
I spotted this comment from you: I am not a practicing Christian, Muslim, or any other type of Abrahamic religious follower. Why, then does your user page say "This user loves God more than anyone and anything!"? I'm genuinely curious about this, it doesn't affect your wiki-editing either way so the answer is of no practical consequence. Orpheus 15:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you also calling me a liar? Hal Cross 15:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, of course not. Like I said, I'm genuinely curious - comparative religious philosophy is an academic interest of mine. Orpheus 15:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you are going to have to compare with atheism, scientific skepticism, or probably "I don't give a toss about the afterlife", then. Hal Cross 15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So how does that match the love-of-God userbox? I'd like to know what you think on the matter. Orpheus 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It all depends on your assumptions about origins. I would disagree with a lot of Christians over conceptualizations of God. I interpret scripture according to my own reading. If you have considered philosophy at all, you would most likely have considered the possibility of a creator. You can be decisive about whether to believe in one or not. And you can be decisive about all the ramifications, or not. I choose to be decisive, at least provisionally, and accept all other views. Wikipedia seems to be consistent with my way of thinking. Just because you know God exists, is the origin of everything, and is there to help, it doesn't follow that you have to be religious about everything. One can believe in God, and at the same time use one's thoughtfulness to determine what is right and wrong or more or less biased etc. This probably has no baring on WP. I don't care if you are a rampant heterosexual, a neonazi, a Scientologist, a Lutheran, or even an administrator. Its encyclopedic articles that count here. Hal Cross 16:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point
You removed a perfectly good chunk of information, information that consensus (including you) supported including, in response to unrelated concerns about reliable sources. Effectively, you were cutting off the nose to spite the face. It is a clear and established policy that a group like the AFA cannot be considered a reliable source for most of its article. That does not mean that the section in question was inappropriate. Furthermore, such rash actions may even constitute vandalism and are certainly disruptive in order to draw attention to an unrelated point (about which you are incorrect). Please pay more mind to policy and do not edit disruptively. And keep in mind that this is not an accusation, it is a warning and some advice, to help you contribute more constructively. --Cheeser1 19:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith and be patient. I am missing something here. I have been working constructively all along, including constructively accepting suggestions on the Wikiquette article. Perhaps you could say I am dumb. Please explain to me which parts are acceptable, and which are unacceptable for applying AFA sourced views, because I honestly don't know. Those were certainly not views reached via consensus. They are narrow snippets that anti-AFA editors would most probably prefer because they are evangelical, rather than reason oriented. I added other views and beliefs that were always deleted because editors didn't like them. and was about to add views that were more representative of the AFA as a whole and included non-AFA sources. Your input will help. Assuming good faith will probably also help. Hal Cross 19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand WP:RS, as you seem to be admitting, don't make bold edits based on it. The AFA may provide input to characterize it's views, in a broad sense, however it cannot be used as a source throughout the article, especially not to counter criticisms. This was explained on the WP:WQA. --Cheeser1 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but this all seems very inconsistent. Perhaps your friends on the Wikiquette article have a slightly different view from you . I'm honestly not trying to be deliberately obtuse. I've had enough of that to know it can induce rage. I'll keep off any sort of editing for a day to focus on discussion and getting the picture straight. Hal Cross 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are saying here, except perhaps to imply that I meant the exact opposite of what I actually did mean. As regards to this discussion, I don't disagree with Cheeser1 in even the slightest fraction, as far as I can tell. WP:SELFPUB isn't really very unclear; I don't quite understand what the confusion is here. Dlabtot 02:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are correct Dlabtot. It took me a while to sort it out because people kept saying Orpheus and CMMK were doing nothing wrong. Thats the inconsistency that had me confused. I was using them as an example of correctness. I saw lots of information that complies with that selfpub list being removed from the article. I think I've sorted it out now. I'll restore the wrongly deleted material in a minute, and you can give me specific feedback if you have time. Regards Hal Cross 02:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, mea culpa, I should have read the diff before I left the comment above. I do believe that organization's 'mission statement's have no place in articles  - they are basically a sales pitch.  OTOH, taking that all out, while leaving the heading, and not talking about it on the talk page, could give the impression that it was done to make a point rather than to create a better article through a consensus process. I could be wrong about that.  Like I said, I think imho, the article is better off without a mission statement. Looking at the page for a similarly controversial political organization, MoveOn, there is nothing comparable. But maybe, considering that the editing environment on the article is, shall we say, a little heated, this is a point to go slow and do a lot of talking to achieve consensus before being super bold. Just to be on the safe side. OTOH, I really am pretty new here, I'm no one to give advice. Dlabtot 03:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I don't think mission statements are particularly important either. The views of the AFA can be far better represented via attachment to their reported activities. Hal Cross 03:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Using citations to back-up information not mentioned in the citation
You added this edit to the AFA article while ago "Some psychologists complained the advertisements would encourage pedophilia. "
 * This reference, which you did not provide an author, URL, or ISSN for, says nothing about "psychologists" and only references "pedophilia" in the sentence: "Rev. Donald Wildmon, the president of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss., told Associated Press that the photo would appeal to pedophiles and was 'nothing more than pornography.'"
 * Using citations, which have nothing to do with the sentences you place them at, possibly hoping no one will look up the story and realize your text is complete OR, is not acceptable. You used this same reference to another complete OR sentence, which I have explained here. This type of deceitful editing is not okay. Please do not do this in the future. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 04:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Hal, there have been alot of instances where you've shown an inability to understand (or follow) WP:RS. While we are happy to help you understand it, you continue to make drastic and/or highly dubious changes to the article. Maybe you should stop making edits like this until you fully understand how sourcing works on Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 04:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The source states “Designer Calvin Klein decided on Wednesday to cancel an advertising campaign for his new line of children's underwear after heavy criticism from conservative groups, psychologists and the mayor, among others.” Then goes on to explicitly mention Wildmon etcHal Cross 05:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And where on Earth do you make the connection between psychologists and the AFA and/or pedophelia?? See also WP:SYN. --Cheeser1 05:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If memory serves correctly, the article talks about Calvin Klein being complained about by the AFA, and psychologists who are concerned that the ads will encourage pedophilia. As always I am open to the fact being rephrased to make it more accurate or correct. And as seems to be their habit, Orpheus and CMMK simply remove such information regardless of what the source specifies. I'd like to remind you again that I am not trying to push any particular POV here and I have never to my knowledge removed any well sourced criticism from the article.


 * Just a minor point. You used bold on the word Earth. That gives me the impression you are shouting at me. I am not sure about that particular area of convention here, but its certainly something I will avoid. I have seen other editors use italic to emphasize parts of the sentence and will use that method instead.


 * Also, I do admit to being confused now about a number of things and I'd appreciate your input. Some points of confusion still remaining are;


 * Was I not assuming good faith by pointing out Orpheus' lack of communication and lack of acknowledgement of my use of any sources? Were you not assuming good faith by accusing me of twisting your words?


 * If I add a sourced statement, and the source and statement do not match perfectly, is it more appropriate to remove the statement altogether, or to adjust the statement to fit the source more correctly?


 * I am still unsure over which statements of the AFA should be allowed in and which AFA statements should be struck from the article. I will work on that on my own though as I think you are correct to send me to the appropriate guidelines for clarification from the source. Your recommendation to take a break is one way to go. I'll keep working on making the article more encyclopedic though and avoid using AFA sourced statements without support from other sources. Your input has been quite inconsistent I feel, but quite positive over all. At least I have a better idea of the sort of sources I need to sort out the ongoing "delete instead of adjust" episode. Hal Cross 07:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Since the article is on proquest (ISSN 03190714), I copied and pasted it below: All material copyright Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. "Calvin Klein bows to campaign critics" Friday, February 19, 1999 The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Feb 19, 1999. pg. A.3 New York Times Service New York -- Designer Calvin Klein decided on Wednesday to cancel an advertising campaign for his new line of children's underwear after heavy criticism from conservative groups, psychologists and the mayor, among others. Calvin Klein Inc. had planned to unveil a huge billboard in Times Square yesterday -- in the middle of Fashion Week -- showing two boys who appeared to be about 6, one clad only in jockey shorts, the other in boxers, standing on a sofa and arm-wrestling. But after The New York Post published an article about the advertisements on Wednesday, the designer apparently got an earful from critics. "The comments and reaction that we have received today raised issues that we had not fully considered," the company said in a brief statement issued on Wednesday night. "As a result, we have decided to discontinue the campaign immediately." A full-page version of the advertisement ran in The New York Times on Wednesday, and it is also in the March issue of the magazine Martha Stewart Living. But critics were unimpressed. Rev. Donald Wildmon, the president of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss., told Associated Press that the photo would appeal to pedophiles and was "nothing more than pornography."

As you can see, there is a big difference between if you are "add[ing] a sourced statement, and the source and statement do not match perfectly" and adding a source and the statement do not match at all. You state the source says, "Designer Calvin Klein decided on Wednesday to cancel an advertising campaign for his new line of children's underwear after heavy criticism from conservative groups, psychologists and the mayor, among others"; however, this is not in article. You further state "If memory serves correctly," possibly to make it seem as if you had written the statement thinking the article was about something it was not actually about; however, I know there is no way someone can misinterpret this article like you did and your edits mentioned above are a direct violation of Wikipedia policy, which you should be familiar with by now. I am disappointed you are 'playing stupid' by indirectly denying you knowingly did anything wrong/down-playing your actions. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 08:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * CMMK, I believe the constructive way forward is to make appropriate alterations rather than blanket revert or delete. You could have simply asked for a more specific statement or requested further sourcing. As it is you seem to be requesting more information to source the views of the AFA on pedophilia and related subjects. I'll have a look for more sources. Hal Cross 09:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hal, when you ad unsourced and/or incorrect information into the article, a revert is the appropriate alteration. You've made it abundantly clear that you're having trouble contributing constructively to this article, and while I would like to help you understand WP:RS, I'm not getting through (clearly). Please take the time to get a better understanding of the relevant policies before you continue to add information into this article, or at least before you start telling people what to do or what they're requesting from you. --Cheeser1 11:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt and considered reply Cheeser1. I believe I am flexible regarding reverts, and will supply the sort of sources you are requesting. I believe people are not assuming good faith concerning myself though. For example, CMMK's comment above could be considered a personal attack, especially considering his use of the term "deceitful editing" . At the very least it is a failure to assume good faith. I could have said the same thing about his comment above where he says that the source says nothing about psychologists. I could have inferred that he is a liar or was lying, but I assumed good faith and simply wave it off as a mistake. I am working constructively here and will continue to work to supply reliable sources and seek your input. Hal Cross 11:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hal, "assume good faith" is what one does at the start. You've been doing the same thing for a long time now, despite having been repeatedly and thoroughly informed that you're not citing appropriate sources. It's hard to continue to assume good faith when you say you've heard everything, and act like you haven't heard a word of it. --Cheeser1 11:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheeser1 I added some links yesterday and one of them was corrected by you because it was inappropriate and I agreed with your interpretation. I stand corrected and am willing to admit that I have made mistakes. I am now taking time to understand the finer points of reliable sourcing and will only make edits where I am happy that the sources are sufficiently mainstream and not AFA. I added information today that was from Wikipedia. It was reverted and thats fine. I have already stated that I will supply the appropriate sources. I am working in full cooperation and am open to all suggestions on how to apply reliable sources. Here is the appropriate information on how and when to revert


 * "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it."


 * I'm going to be using this recommendation as a guide. I believe its constructive. Hal Cross 11:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's nice, and I'm glad we both want to be constructive, but sometimes what you add can't be improved, Hal. Inappropriate claims gleaned from inappropriate references can't be "improved" - they have to be removed. Obviously, this recommendation is generally applicable, but you keep sticking in random little tidbits of inaccuracy. Citing snippets of particular guidelines (out of context) doesn't change the fact that if you plop down a sentence that blatantly fails WP:RS and WP:V and is highly dubious, there isn't much room for us to improve it. Especially when it's not some new point of view or change to the article, but the same stuff you keep on adding, and we keep on removing for the same reason. --Cheeser1 15:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I have access to information that Orpheus and others can't find or access. To me the information that I have collected on my computer seems to hold together pretty well. I'll do what I can about better consistency in presenting them.


 * Here is another relevant question: Orpheus mentioned a Charity Navigator source as being inappropriate . Here is the link . Could you point me towards the WP policies or guidelines that would disallow this source for the edit in question? Hal Cross 15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The text you're using from that page is a direct copy of the AFA's about page, so it's equivalent to using that.


 * Regarding the other sources that "perhaps" you have access to, either you can cite them on the page and should do so, or you can't and they may as well not exist. I'm getting the impression of a card player, slowly revealing his hand. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work - you improve the encyclopedia in the best way you can, not keeping some back in case of an unspecified future need.
 * I'll ask straight out - what exactly is the information that you have access to that I "can't find or access"? Orpheus 15:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm being deliberately calm about adding edits to the article. If you hadn't noticed already the general pattern on the article is for editors to make a change, and for Orpheus or CMMK to make a reversion as soon as they possibly can and often without discussion. My edits yesterday resulted in some rather rapid reversions. Luckily due in part to your presence, there was discussion. I do generally try to avoid edit warring and have recently stepped up the effort on that. I have a lot of information on the AFA. What area of the AFA are you specifically interested in?


 * I'll get other opinions on the use of the Charity Navigator view as you didn't provide any WP policies or guidelines to support your assertion. Hal Cross 15:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(od) You realise you were replying to me, right? The policy to support my view on the Charity Navigator link is WP:RS.

The only information you have on the AFA I'm interested in is what comes from reliable sources. If you collected it on your computer then it's almost certainly original research. If you've got reliably sourced information, add it to the article. If you haven't, then don't. Either way, it would save a lot of database space if you stopped talking about your sources and started using them. Orpheus 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes I see its you now. I was under the impression you were Cheeser1:) I'll get myself some glasses one day. I will still get a second opinion on the Charity Navigator link. To me it seems obvious that CN rate AFA highly for its role in society, and thus they will also agree with AFA's description of itself. The statement made by the CN site is published by CN and can be considered their view. Unless you can point me to a specific area in the WP:RS recommendations that negate all outside agreement with the AFA.


 * If I collect information on my computer, its just information. My intentions here are to present the information straight. Simple straight reporting of facts and sourced views about facts. Hal Cross 16:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When you get a second opinion on the Charity Navigator link, please do so publically, on a Wikipedia page rather than by email or telepathy or any other form of off-wiki communication. It's much more helpful that way. My point is not that they agree with the AFA, but that they seem to just aggregate data from the AFA's website. It's like saying that Google shares the same view, simply because the words appear on a Google page too. Orpheus 16:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You still haven't shown me any evidence to say that the source can be disallowed for that particular edit. I feel a little bit silly having to explain this simple stuff, but it really does seem self evident that the AFA stands for traditional family values, and that is what they are appreciated for by millions of Americans of various beliefs. I'll keep up the source search though, even if my present sources are fine. Hal Cross 16:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no need to be patronising. The problem with the term "traditional family values" is that it's inaccurate. The values the AFA advocates are conservative Christian. They may be traditional in some families but they're not in others, so it's not a useful term. If you want to use it, you have to define "traditional" and "family". Are you talking about North America? WASP? Boston? California? Catholic? Jewish? Immigrant? Upper-class? Lower-class? Indian? Eskimo? Each has different traditions, different concepts of family and different values. As the family values article points out, the term is vague and politically loaded - much more so than "conservative Christian". This is borne out by your inability to find reliable sources for t.f.v, whereas there are dozens for the other term. Orpheus 17:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The AFA seems to include all of those people when they talk about traditional family values. They are appealing to the widest section of the world so that they can make the best use of their activism. The literature says they called it the AFA because they were broadening their concerns. Its really pretty clear. Many believers and even atheists support the AFA and work with them in boycotting what they see as an attack on their traditions and values. So of course TFV is more appropriate.


 * I am also taking into account your preference for Anti-abortion, rather than Pro-life, and your insistence on the homophobia category with a dismissal of the use of care recommendation. In addition to using accusational terms and you tend to remove views (well sourced or not) on the AFA concern about indecent influences that lead to pedophilia, bestiality and so on. I may need to learn a few finer points about Wikipedia editing, as we all do in some areas, but I wasn't born yesterday. Hal Cross 17:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The AFA seems to include all of those people when they talk about traditional family values.  - I can't see any evidence of that - perhaps you have some in the large store of information you keep talking about.


 * The literature says - what literature?


 * what they see as an attack on their traditions and values. - You need evidence for a claim like that.


 * In addition to using accusational terms - Such as? If you think I am being uncivil, file a WP:RFC/U against me.


 * you tend to remove views (well sourced or not) - not true. I do, however, remove things that aren't well sourced or that are simply opinion.


 * concern about indecent influences that lead to pedophilia, bestiality and so on - at the risk of sounding like a broken record, where is your evidence for this? It needs more than a group's concern to meet the notability standard.


 * but I wasn't born yesterday - what are you trying to insinuate? It would be better if you said things clearly instead of relying on euphemism and nudge-nudge-wink-wink.


 * Orpheus 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Outdent. Orpheus, if you have any particular suggestions on improving the article then suggest them. Otherwise I don't see the value in any of your comments above. Hal Cross 18:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, my suggestion for improving the article is that you start sharing the large collection of reliable sources you keep telling us about. My comments above are in response to your comments, so the value is in the free exchange of ideas. Orpheus 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will. Via editing Wikipedia. Hal Cross 18:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I look forward to it. If you want to save yourself some work, you could post all the links on your user page or something and let other people help out - you don't have to do it all yourself. Orpheus 18:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "even atheists support the AFA" - This surprises me (if it is true). Is this a reason why you are against "promotes conservative Christian values"? Please explain further. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 17:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just look at the numbers of people boycotting large companies via the AFA. Of course atheists will join in a boycott that benefits their lifestyle, traditions, and society. The local Buddhists were raising money for improving the local environment where I live. I'm certainly no Buddhist and have a dislike for some of their attitudes, but I support them in their efforts and donated my time and money. Hal Cross 18:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence that large numbers of atheists join in the AFA's boycotts, or believe that they benefit their lifestyle, traditions and society? It's not axiomatic that eliminating pornography will make society a better place. Orpheus 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I don't. But I believe a lot of atheist will have supported the AFA. I wasn't trying to get the information into the article, though it may well turn out that way. Eliminating porn isn't the only thing the AFA are into. Certainly working to reduce the incidence of child porn and pedophilia will be a benefit to many people. The world is full of people that would prefer various forms of what they consider obscenity to be stopped, or at least complained about via organizing campaigns. The seems AFA caters for those people pretty well. Freedom of speech is close to a lot of folk's heart's. Thats what the literature says anyway. Hal Cross 18:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(od) You keep referring to "the literature", but you never say what literature you mean. What do you mean by "the literature"? Orpheus 18:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * By the literature I'm talking generically, about the published literature that discusses the AFA. I'm sure you'll find that some of it is in the article already, and probably lots of it are in the edit history. Hal Cross 19:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The literature generically is not a source Hal. If you want to introduce a claim, source the claim. You can't wave your hands at an ethereal body of literature that may or may not exist. This entire discussion is about you introducing claims into the article that are non-neutral, from the AFA's perspective, highly dubious, and not reliably sourced. Every claim requires its own source. --Cheeser1 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheeser1. Orpheus badgered me for information and I gave a civil answer. Hal Cross 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any badgering going on, and your civility was not in question. Let's try to stick to the topic at hand, instead of creating accusation/conflict where there is none. --Cheeser1 04:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes let's. Hal Cross 04:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Helpful hint
A friendly suggestion regarding your talk page posts - when you cite policy, do it with a wiki-link, not an external link. For instance, you cited this part of a policy page:. If you go there, you'll notice that there's a box containing "Policy Shortcut: WP:PRACTICAL". That's a wiki-link you can use in talk pages and so on so people can see immediately what you mean. Cite it like this: WP:PRACTICAL. Makes it easier to read and follow, and it's better for technical reasons too. Orpheus 10:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I know how to use them. Hal Cross 18:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why don't you? You keep using external links to cite policy, which is a bad idea - if the policy ever moves then the wiki bots can't fix the links automatically. Orpheus 18:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You wrote that you were offering a friendly suggestion. So why now the brow beating? Hal Cross 19:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

AFA on ANI (Response)
I think that should be about right. WAVY 10 Fan 12:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks much Wavy. Its gone to RFC, but there could possibly be some more responses from other admins. Your help with applying for a mediator would be welcome at some point, as I have absolutely no idea how to as yet:)  Hal Cross 12:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to sound like a broken record, but there is no need for "applying for a mediator." Mediation is not a good idea to solve the current AFA dispute. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Internal links
I see you're still adding internal links as external ones. It's considered wise to link to Wikipedia pages with double [ characters, not single. Orpheus 12:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And ? Hal Cross 12:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And, you should use the proper link style for internal pages. See here, for example, where I corrected myself for the same mistake. Like I said above, there's good technical reasons to do it. Orpheus 12:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it mandatory? Hal Cross 15:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea. Orpheus 15:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not having a go at you, I'm trying to offer a helpful suggestion on how to edit Wikipedia better. You keep expressing a desire to learn, but it seems that whenever I share the things I've picked up over the years, you don't want to hear about it. What's the deal with that? Orpheus 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'll take it under advisement thenHal Cross 15:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Charity Navigator

 * Note for third opinion: Discussion started here: Talk:American Family Association and moved to talk page when it became obvious it was a dispute between two editors only. Also continued in second section at the end of this page. Orpheus 09:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read this page:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/439.htm

In particular, the following two excerpts (emphasis not added - it's formatted like that on the page)


 * 1) In addition to our financial ratings, Charity Navigator provides several other pieces of information in an effort to educate donors and provide a more detailed picture of each charity. None of these additional categories impacts a charity's overall score or rating.
 * 2) This mission, however, does consist entirely of text taken from each organization's own web site, Form 990, annual report, and/or marketing materials.

The comments you are making on the AFA talk page regarding Charity Navigator are at best wrong and at worst deceitful. Please stop using it as a source for anything other than financial data. Orpheus 10:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Orpheus, you accusing me of deceit really isn't helping anyone. Hal Cross 11:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're making statements that are clearly wrong, and when that's pointed out and backed up by evidence, you continue to make them. What would you call that? Orpheus 11:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To add context, the claims I am referring to are here. Orpheus 12:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Which particular statements in that link are you referring to for driving your accusation of deceit? Hal Cross 12:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't accuse you of deceit. I said that what you were saying was at best wrong, and at worst deceitful. I assumed the best - that you're just misreading the source. If you keep on misreading it, then what am I supposed to assume? The statement I refer to is your assertion that Charity Navigator is a reliable source for the AFA's claims. They aren't - they make no statement about anything other than the AFA's finances and their legal status as a charitable organisation. You keep denying that, with such sweeping statements as "Clearly many people, base their views on a particular charity on how well they provide a public benefit. Charity Navigator are celebrating this." They are celebrating nothing - their ratings have nothing to do with a charity's mission, goals, public benefit, or any of the other things you are attempting to claim in the talk page discussion. Orpheus 13:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not wrong at best or lying at worst. I am referring to sources, and making assessments of the sources just like everyone other reasonable editor.  Hal Cross 13:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The source does not say what you say it does. That makes your assessment invalid. Orpheus 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Editors quote passages from sources. They make assessments on those statements. That is not lying. They are doing this to help. Please stop inferring or accusing me of deceit. You are not helping anyone by persistently pushing your accusation. Please assume good faith. Hal Cross 13:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am telling you that your assessment is invalid. It's not helping. At no point have you actually addressed what I'm saying - what correct grounds do you have for using Charity Navigator as a source for anything other than publically reported financial data? Orpheus 13:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have told you on the AFA talkpage, the Charity Navigator's objective for rating is such: “Our approach to rating charities is driven by those two objectives: helping givers and celebrating the work of charities.”. Those are the reasons for my assessment that the AFA is a reliable source for its nature as a charity. That is my assessment, please respect the considered assessments of other editors. Please assume good faith. Hal Cross 13:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

(od) If your assessment is that the AFA is legally a charity, then that's fine - that's supported by CN. But the claims you were making on the talk page went beyond that. You can't use CN as a source for any assessment of the worth, or societal benefit, or effectiveness of the AFA's programmes. You can only use them as a source for what percentage of donations goes to such programmes. Orpheus 13:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want a specific example, try this one, where you say that CN says that the AFA help defend civil rights. They say no such thing. Orpheus 14:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep repeating something that is evidently incorrect? Orpheus 16:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories
Regarding this, you say "I have objected to other organizations being in the category". What organisations, and where did you say this? Orpheus 13:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I stated "Just looking at the category again what it needs is more concepts about homophobia, and certainly not a list of organizations or religions that oppose specific activities of what gay activists propose." That was my objection. Hal Cross 13:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why shouldn't it have organisations whose activities either fit the definition of homophobia or advocate against it? All the other prejudice-related categories include both. Orpheus 14:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Because Wikipedia guidelines and policies are written in a way that Wikipedia will not take sides in controversies. Hal Cross 08:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But if you exclude one of those two types of organisation, you are taking a side. Orpheus 08:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Charity navigator 2
Regarding your edit here: you have once again stated that your Charity Navigator link supports your view that the AFA provides a public benefit. The link does not support that. This has been pointed out repeatedly. You are being dishonest by continuing to use that link. I can no longer assume good faith on your part - it is now obvious that you are wilfully misleading people on the talk page by using this link as support. Please stop doing this and withdraw your remarks. Orpheus 07:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My comments are written to help editors discuss: Hal Cross 08:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're using it again! due to the nature of the AFA that according to source is classed as providing the public benefit of advocacy and civil rights - that is untrue, Hal. The source does not say that at all. Why do you persist in making a misleading statement, over and over again? Orpheus 08:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * According to WP policies, you must assume good faith Hal Cross 08:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have assumed good faith. I assumed that you didn't realise that what you were saying is wrong. I've pointed out to you, over and over again, exactly why what you are saying is wrong. You keep saying it. What am I supposed to assume that that point? Either you can't read, or you are being deliberately misleading, or you're about to withdraw your remarks on the AFA talk page and stop using that source to support something it doesn't support. I would love to assume the third option. Orpheus 08:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * According to WP policies, you must continue to assume good faith. Not just assume it for a time and then arbitrarily stop. Hal Cross 09:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to edit in good faith, too. It's a two-way street. Why won't you accept that your link does not say what you claim it does? Orpheus 09:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I draw your attention to the first entry in WP:HONESTY. Orpheus 09:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what honesty is, and I posted the link to help other editors assess my own assessment of the source. Hal Cross 09:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Would you be prepared to go to mediation to get a ruling on that source? Orpheus 09:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the AFA article itself should be mediated by an administrator. That will solve many related problems at the same time. WAVY 10 FAN seems to agree and I will work with Wavy to help the article in that way. Hal Cross 09:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Administrators don't mediate. Read the policy page more carefully. I want to resolve the issue of this source properly, because it's not productive to just sit and shout at each other. I think the constructive approach is to go to mediation and present our cases to an experienced third party mediator. This isn't about the article as a whole - it's just whether this source is acceptable. Will you accept mediation over the Charity Navigator source? Orpheus 09:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind, we'll try a third opinion first. Orpheus 09:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading the discussion above and the information on the CharityNavigator.org webpage, I must side with Orpheus on this issue. Charity Navigator states it tries to provide "unbiased, objective, numbers-based rating system to assess the financial health" of charities. This does not mean they will refrain from describing the charity, or it's mission, but when they do so, in order to remain unbiased such descriptions will "consist entirely of text taken from each organization's own web site, Form 990, annual report, and/or marketing materials."

So to use information from Charity Navigator to claim a charity provides a benefit to society (which would be a decidely biased and subjective statement regarding a charity's mission) is not appropriate.

As a final note, it is my opinion that repeatedly claiming violations of assume good faith to be inappropriate here. Orpheus presented clear and concise reasoning behind his statement that a source was being misinterpretted. For someone to continue repeating this misinterpretation without justifying it in light of the recently supplied evidence, can indeed be interpretted as dishonest. Stating so is not a violation of assume good faith, and trying to deflect conversation or argue implicitly via ad hominem based on the assume good faith policy is not constructive. Although, as can be seen, stating such a thing in the first place was not particularly constructive either.

Compared to many arguments on wiki this one stayed fairly civil. So I have hope that you two can resolve this rationally with no further input. Good luck and happy editting. GrapeSmuckers 10:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input GrapeSmuckers. I only gave my assessment of the Charity Navigator website whilst providing the link directly. I have not lied about the content of the information in any way and I have been completely open in providing the source. Nobody is saying my statement is a falsehood apart from Orpheus. However, due to your reasonable advice here, I will when referring to the Charity Navigator, only refer to what is stated and not give my assessment of what is stated. Unless you think there is anything in particular wrong with that? Regards Hal Cross 12:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. P.s. The Charity Navigator does not classify its charities on the basis of the description (which is checked and confirmed by the CN company anyway).  Here is what they do:


 * "In assigning each charity to a Category and Cause, we again seek to be fair, accurate, and user-friendly. We make these assignments using three criteria. First, we use the activity code each charity selects in its filings with the IRS to determine how the charity classifies itself. Second, we examine the charity's programs and services to determine what the charity actually does. Third, we examine the charity's financial information to determine how it functions financially. Using those criteria, we assign the charity to the Category and Cause where it can be compared with similar charities."


 * Thats the process in full I believe. I think its kind of interesting and seems to involve quite a lot of human assessment.


 * I think its quite an interesting process, and does show that it is a system (information systems are human artefact's and documents, human interactions, and technology). Its not just an automated collection method or web-bot. RegardsHal Cross 12:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Charity Navigator 3
You keep using Charity Navigator as a source to back up your arguments. That is misleading and wrong. How many people have to tell you that it doesn't mean what you say it means before you stop? Orpheus 04:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm simply stating what Charity Navigator says about its creation of categories and its assignment of the AFA to the category: Public Benefit; Advocacy and Civil Rights. The Charity Navigator site states that it is celebrating charities, and it rates the AFA as Exceptional. Other editors seem to be denying those statements exist. Hal Cross 04:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we are pointing out that a vague mission statement is not a reliable source. The rating of exceptional applies solely to the financial data. Will you agree to take this to formal mediation? Orpheus 04:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are asserting that it is a mission statement. I am not asserting anything. I'm just stating what the Charity Navigator people are stating. I am happy to take the whole of the AFA article to mediation as I said above. But mediating a simple statement seems to me to be unconstructive. Hal Cross 04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are using it to back up your argument, which is not appropriate. This is not about a "simple statement", it is about your unwillingness to abide by WP:RS. The Charity Navigator source that you keep bringing up is an excellent symptom of that. Why do you not wish to take this to mediation - if a definite answer comes out, that will be very constructive. Orpheus 04:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Other editors, including yourself, keep bringing up Charity Navigator. And its no surprise as its a useful indicator of the AFA charity. Hal Cross 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Where has anyone but you used it as a source for anything? It is a useful indicator of the percentage of donations spent on programmes rather than administration. IT IS NOT USEFUL FOR ANYTHING ELSE. How is it possible to make you see this? Orpheus 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would advise against shouting in caps. Others, such as Cheeser1 and yourself have used it as a source to state that it is just about financial data. I have shown quotes from Charity Navigator that state Charity Navigator made the classification of: Public Benefit; Advocacy and Civil Rights; and that the Charity Navigator people state that they are celebrating charities, and they rate the AFA on a qualitative rating as Exceptional. Hal Cross 05:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(od) So other people used it as a source to show that you are wrong, and you say that that means it is "a useful indicator of the AFA charity"? Are you serious? The classification is based on the AFA's IRS filings, not because Charity Navigator see the AFA as a shining defender of civil rights. The qualitative rating is based solely on the financial data. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the AFA's programmes. By repeating your claims you are being dishonest, vexatious and unhelpful. Please stop, or at least agree to mediation. It seems that you have ignored the third opinion so I think we should try the next dispute resolution step - mediation. Do you agree? Orpheus 05:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All I am repeating is quotes from the Charity Navigator experts, and that is in reply to your repetitive questioning. Hal Cross 10:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's the context in which you are using the quotes. You are using them to back up your argument by claiming that Charity Navigator thinks the AFA is exceptional - they have no such opinion. That is misleading. Unless we start discussing financial data, you shouldn't use the Charity Navigator source at all. Perhaps my questioning wouldn't be so repetitive if you didn't keep using the same discredited answers over and over again. Orpheus 10:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You cannot discredit a direct quote. I abode by the third party input. I have stopped adding my assessment to the quotes. You are continuing to add your assessment of those direct quotes. GrapeSmuckers above was only talking about the text. I am quoting the Charity Navigator experts on how they create categories for a select number of charities, and they assigned the AFA to: Category: Public Benefit, Advocacy and Civil Rights. I am not assessing it at all. I am only quoting the source whenever the issue is reopened by you or others. Hal Cross 11:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hal, they have a whole template for when people misrepresent or decontextualize a quotation in order to make claims that it does not support. See Template:Citecheck and WP:RS. --Cheeser1 15:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Category links
When you link to a category, use Category:Category name. That way, if the category is ever renamed, bots can find your link and amend them. That ensures your comments are not misunderstood in the future. Orpheus 10:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia category
Don't remove it again, please. You don't have consensus for that edit - at the very best opinion is split; you'll just be reverted (as you have been) and I don't see the point in edit-warring over it.  E LIMINATOR JR  08:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The differing opinions on categorization are between 1. a handfull of editors who generally disallow positive views in the article, and who want the conflict provoking and one-sided condemnatory category, and 2. the rest of Wikipedia who would prefer not to have NPOV circumvented, and would prefer not to have the endless disruption. Hal Cross 08:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hal, we've seen your other conversations on here. You don't want the homophobia category because you ARE one. Get a life, man. --98.232.180.37 (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

AGF
Regarding your 08:51, 4 November 2007 edit to Talk:American Family Association: WP:AGF does not state you can misuse and disrupt Wikipedia by claiming you are acting in good faith, as multiple editors have explained to you the problems with your edits, yet your actions don't change. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 09:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The allegation by Cheeser1 was that I am intentionally trying to disrupt things on the article. The fact is that Sam, for instance, is encouraging us to discuss these issues. Do you wish to accuse Sam of being disruptive or refusing to get the point also? There are 3 regular editors who are not discussing the issues or compromises, and 2 editors who are working to have the issues and compromises discussed. Does that mean you get to call an editor who does not hold your worldview disruptive? Hal Cross 09:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hal, this has nothing to do with assuming good faith. Follow the rules: WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT are there to keep discussions productive. You have been made aware of them, and do not follow them. Whether or not you do so in good faith is irrelevant - you're doing it wrong, and doing so despite knowing better. That's the essence of intentionality. Hence you are intentionally being disruptive by not following those guidelines, and it is preventing a productive discussion from taking place (and fueling an unproductive one). AGF is not a shield for you to do whatever you want. --Cheeser1 10:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheeser1 that is a rather extreme stretch. I have not contacted any forums. The only thing I am doing is cooperating with multiple community editor input on RfC, recommendations such as Categorization guidelines, and admins such as Sam. My intention is clearly cooperation, discussion, and problem solving using multiple compromises according to consensus . Please address the issues and stop making this personal. Hal Cross 10:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hal, read the forum-shopping policy. It has nothing to do with "contacting forums." I'm glad to see you've taken the time to review the policies and guidelines that have become an issue in the dispute. Not. --Cheeser1 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheeser1, this is funny. You present just about the most self-contradictory an flaccid arguments for clinging onto a condemnatory category against reasonable input from outside editors, and fail to address the relevant issues, and now you are trying to say I am repeatedly asking for outside help. I am following Wikipedia process, and others are helping me, including AniMate, who started the RfC (which you urgently closed after many editors were making guideline and NPOV based objections about the homophobia category that you are insisting upon against Wikipedia recommendations). Its clear that just about all other editors apart from myself are actively asking for outside opinions, yet you accuse me. And you turned up here to insist on the pejorative category, ignore issues and outside input, suppress well sourced information, and generally breach Wikiquette by making everything personal, and that was just after Orpheus and CMMK decided to ask for your help at the Wikiquette fiasco. Your desperate accusation is just ridiculous. Hal Cross 18:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So, have you even bothered to read WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT yet? You only seek outside opinions that agree with you, and in order to get that opinion, you go around the correct process (CfD) and even ignore the outcome of the RfC, which didn't end "urgently" but rather stopped happening because nobody had anything to say because this has to do with a category dispute - something to be addressed at the category itself. Your failure to address this issue in the correct place, or to heed the consensus established in the correct place, is exactly the issue. This isn't a personal attack or a manifestation of some gay agenda, like you allege. It's the consensus building process. Deal with it. --Cheeser1 19:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheeser1. You seem to be here to cast aspersions or otherwise try to make it look as if I am doing something wrong. I believe that is an abuse of my talkpage and I believe you have been similarly abusive in the past. The only editors who are seeming to offer me such harassment are those editors who wish to keep the condemnatory category. Please stop. Its just getting silly. Hal Cross 19:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hal, your talk page is exactly where I'm allowed to say "Hey Hal, follow these two rules. If you want to include "slandering Hal Cross" to the list of accusations you're piling up against the gay-agenda, anti-AFA cabal that you imagine exists, feel free. But until you start respecting those two rules and working within the consensus building process, things will not change. --Cheeser1 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I guess top of my list of crimes is dogged adherence to Wikipedia guidelines, and encouraging discussion after its been dismissed by those who don't want to discuss compromise . Here is the consensus in practice link again “Running roughshod over the (then) minority is the best way to get yourself into almost unlimited amounts of trouble.“Hal Cross 03:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's nice Hal, but the consensus process is exactly how we build consensus. Your attempts to build some other "consensus" in some other fashion are not helpful, and hinder the actual consensus-building process. How do we assess the applicability/viability of a category? Feed and endless dispute on the talk page of some article, or have a CfD? Gosh I wonder. --Cheeser1 04:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Cheeser1. You seem to have built a ironcast reputation for evading the issues. There is a multitude of diffs to show for it e.g. the latest; . The issues to discuss are very broad. The issues in the subject are broad, yet the broader issues have generally been denied by those editors clinging onto the condemnatory category. Trying to pass the issues onto CfD is a ridiculous suggestion. The whole article needs to have the blinkers removed and the soapbox kicked away. Mediation will help. Hal Cross 04:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(od) A question, Hal - if the mediation result ends up disagreeing with you, will you respect it, or will you keep arguing until you get what you want? Orpheus 04:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll adhere to the consensus process and Wikipedia guidelines on categorization. I'll do anything in NPOV policy that helps improve the article from its presently blinkered state.  Hal Cross 05:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That wasn't the question. The question was not "will you continue to do exactly what you're doing" it was "will you stop it when someone tells you to stop." --Cheeser1 05:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends on the situation. If reasonable outside editor view or arbitration states that I should stop doing something then of course I will. But if someone turns up to repeatedly criticize any editor who dares to bring up the subject of NPOV and categorization guidelines, then I'll simply refer them to guidelines and NPOV policy, and I'll continue working on balancing the article. Hal Cross 05:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If reasonable outside editor view or arbitration states that I should stop doing something then of course I will - This has not been true in the past. Your Depends on the situation attitude is not helpful. Do you actually think mediators are not reasonable? "Mediators are duly nominated and promoted members of the Mediation Committee. They are experienced and trusted Wikipedians selected by the current members of the Committee" so says WP:M. Your recent comments are even more reason of why mediation is a bad idea.—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 06:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * CMMK, I am the one who wants mediation and you seem to be refusing mediation. I am interested in mediation, and I'm interested in problem solving and applying Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I'm sure I'll get along with any mediator very well. Hal Cross 07:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * CMMK has agreed to mediation, perhaps under the provision that you agree to it as well. And you have. Except that you agree only to abide by it if it suits you - if that is not the case, if you agree to abide by the outcome, regardless of what it is, then just say so, instead of mincing words about how the outcome might be unfair and then you wouldn't want to follow it. --Cheeser1 07:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheeser1, mediation suits me very well. And I am not demanding any conditions from anyone. Hal Cross 07:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you shouldn't have any problem saying something like "I agree to abide by the result of the mediation, even if it doesn't agree with my position". Orpheus 08:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mediation
Not terribly familiar with it myself. Sorry I couldn't be of any help. WAVY 10 Fan 13:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks anyway Wavy. I'll work it out. Hal Cross 17:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
Per analysis of Checkuser data,

 E LIMINATOR JR  23:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)