User talk:Mfhiller

January 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Nazism with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazism&action=history page history]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Nazism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.  freshacconci  talk talk  04:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Nazism, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy
Is there anything ambiguous about "Before changing or editing this statement, please use the talk page to discuss?" S Æ don talk 03:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
S Æ don talk 04:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
S Æ don talk 05:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
S Æ don talk 05:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Your recent editing history at Creation–evolution controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. S Æ don talk 05:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Your editing of the article is becoming problematic. There is absolutely no consensus for this change, but there is consensus that you should discuss any changes to that part of the article. You attempted that and more than one editor disagreed with you. If you revert again you will be blocked and I'd really rather avoid that. You are a new editor and you clearly don't understand how WP works quite yet, so please take my advice and attempt to convince other editors of your position. I don't know why you think there is consensus for your edit, but perhaps it's a misunderstanding of what "consensus" means, so please read the policy at WP:CONSENSUS. S Æ don talk 05:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What you did wrong.
This is why I am pissed off: You introduced a change into this article which you knew was contentious, reintroduced it without discussing on the talk page, and reintroduced it again without discussion. You obviously did this to pick a fight, and not to improve the article. This is borne out by the choice of articles you have chosen to edit over the past three months, which are predominantly controversial topics. It looks like you're more interested in conflict than in improving articles. From your last message to me: "This is not how, since at least the pre-Socratics, one goes about winning an argument". WP is not about "winning arguments". Find another venue if that is what you want to do. Also, you are obviously itching for a fight, from the impatient tone of your last message to me: "No response?". Apparently, it never entered your head that other editors have real lives and often cannot answer immediately, or that they live in completely different time zones. Sorry, but you've given me a very strong impression that you are using WP as an outlet for your agression and a source of diverting conflict. Your talk page shows this with its multiple warnings for disruptive editing and edit-warring, and your history shows an inordinate number of reverts. You also show a blatant disregard for consensus, as the edit warring and three reversions without discussion clearly show. This attitude is incompatible with being a productive WP editor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute
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 "Holocaust denial". Thank you. --Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Heidegger and Nazism
Hi, thanks for your message, I made changes on this page indeed, but if they're wrong, feel free to remove them, no problem. Thanks again Fil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filinthe (talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, glad to hear you liked my improvements. Filinthe (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

oh thanks, what should I do? Filinthe (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you for your improvements too. I'll do summarizes from now on, I promise. You removed in the lead "after some hesitation". The denazification hearing took several years. Filinthe (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, hope you're doing well. You added "perhaps" in the lead, but I quoted 2 books, so it's a statement : Heidegger called oft privately his behaviour "Dummheit". Petzet is not alone. Walter Biemel and the others testified too. And Towarnicki speaks about the affiliation too, not only the rectorate. Congratulations for the Mitläufer's article. Best regards, Fil Filinthe (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Done :) Filinthe (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, and for the rest, we are doing a good job I think. Filinthe (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you finds Langwald interesting, but I confess he's a bit weird. It's the most extreme defense of Heidegger I've ever read, even Fédier wouldn't dare. I didn't read it through but Langwald tells I think that Heidegger has always been an opposant to nazism, and was like an insider in the Party (I exagerate perhaps). It's wrong obviously, he makes the same error as Faye, supposing Heidegger was already aware of the dangers of nazism. But Langwald wants to show that it's possible to interpret all the story in that sense, and it works, but I don't like it very much, as with Faye it sounds too like a conspiracy theory. Filinthe (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mitläufer


The article Mitläufer has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unreferenced. Wikipedia is not a dictionary

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Mitläufer for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mitläufer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mitläufer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good move, I tried to improve the article too (my way of course), hope you like it. Filinthe (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Eric Metaxas
Last month you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you intentionally being a WP:DICK over here? We are required by the wording of PROD (provided to you by JohnCD above) to undelete PROD when contested, except in very rare cases.  JohnCD advised you of such so that you could AFD it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mfhiller, I would like to undo the following edits, which I presume are in good faith but are not accurately described by your edit descriptions and seem superfluous violations of NPOV to me. I wanted to give you a chance to clarify these first.
 * 
 * (why not change to "wrote scripts for videos" instead of deleting the whole sentence?)
 * (specifically the addition of "allegedly" and "minor award" because Laura Bush's statement is not in doubt and there is no basis for calling the award minor, respectively)
 * The Christophers are a Catholic organization, not Evangelical.
 * Hugetim (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Eric Metaxas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Populist (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) 14:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Investigation
FYI, you created the SPI in article space at SOCKMASTER. I moved it here. VQuakr (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Good removal
Good one. I can't believe nobody removed that earlier. Ryan Vesey Review me!  15:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Strange
No biggy with me. I just see 'alleged' used so much it looks funny. A better phrase is sources say type thing. I am fine leaving it in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello - re WP:RS - we don't make determinations of whether or not a person who is being quoted is reliable, we make the determination of whether or not the source that quotes it is reliably reporting. The gun range owner is giving his reason for telling his employees not to allow Holmes on the gun range until he meets with him - that may not ultimately turn out to be of any significance, but the way you edited it leaves out half of the story. We are quoting the guy - we shouldn't be characterizing it as "strange recording" - just say what he said. Or leave the whole thing out completely. Tvoz / talk 17:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And reverting my change without any explanation - when I gave a reason in my edit summary for mine - is really not the way to go. Happy to discuss the merits, of course. Tvoz / talk 17:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I noticed after that the source did not use the term. Earlier I thought it had. I struck through my talk page comment as well. I may have been remembered it from a source on the other page on the incident.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - there may be some confusion here - my comment is specifically referring to this unexplained revert by Mfhiller of my change to the text which added the direct quote from the gun range owner. The whole matter is based on what the gun range owner told the news outlet; if we include the fact that he applied for membership and didn't follow up, based on the owner's report, I think we should include the rest of the owner's story about this. Or, we could leave off the whole gun range story. But Mfhiller initially indicated that he/she was taking out the second part because the owner isn't reliable - that's not what RS means, and we shouldn't cherry pick which part of his report to include. (Mfhiller's revert of my edit, which was a change from the original "strange recording" wording, had no explanation.) I struck the "resolved" because my comments haven't been resolved. I probably should have made this a separate section - apologies. Tvoz / talk 18:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand the nature of your complaint Tvoz. I shouldn't have raised this as a WP:RS issue, though to be honest I don't see how any mass media can be considered RS in a case such as this. Let me rephrase my complaint, however: It is relevant to include matter-of-factual information regarding application but quoting owner is dubious because of WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT. Mfhiller (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not going to go to the mattresses on this, but this has nothing at all to do with WP:SYNTH either - that is a subset of the original research prohibition when we make connections that the sources aren't explicitly making. Nothing to do with this.  As for weight, that's not really the argument either - that has to do with how much emphasis a particular argument or, by extension, topic should have in an article relative to the whole article.  That's also got nothing to do with this.  As for whether any source should be considered reliable, again that's not what we mean by RS - a source is considered reliable by  a variety of criteria, essentially whether they adhere to good journalistic standards, not whether they can be considered reliable in the colloquial sense of the word. Of course we hope our sources report the truth, but what we're looking for is that they are verifiable - that is, that any reader can go to the same source and see that it says what we claim it says.  The policy really has nothing at all to do with whether they are accurate (perhaps it should, but it doesn't).  So the matter still is whether we should include the gun range owner's report or not, and if so, how much of it - I think that what the  owner said was widely reported and should be briefly mentioned - my edit was only to restore the one additional sentence, but it gave the whole picture as has been reported.   Perhaps we should move this to the article talk page if you disagree.  You really haven't raised relevant policies. Tvoz / talk 19:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to go to the mattress on this either. However, I'll politely disagree with you on just about all of your points. I've got to get to work but will take this up later. Cheers.
 * That's fine - it's not an emergency. Tvoz / talk 20:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's start here...
1. I'm not sure that my reference to MOS:COMMONALITY was clear. The idea is that we generally favor English variety-neutral terminology when possible. In this context, the word "film" is commonly used across all English varieties, while "movie" is primarily a North American term. Aside from that, we use the word "movie" later in the sentence, so using "film" on the first mention prevents awkward repetition. My university major was radio, television and film, so I'm well aware that many motion pictures are shot and exhibited without the use of celluloid. That isn't the only (or relevant) meaning of the word "film". (Note the name of my major; it isn't "radio, television and movies".) 2. Your edit summary contains no indication of why you reverted from "theater 8" to "Theater 8" (while leaving "theater 9" untouched, I'll point out). Please explain. 3. I noticed that you're doing a great deal of reverting, so please take note of the three-revert rule. Thank you! —David Levy 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't even know, until a little later, that you reverted the "Theater 8" thing. Then it hit me more what you meant further in your comment.   Ok, here it goes:  All refs I've found (and I saw a lot of them) have "in Theater 8" "in Theater 9" etc.   So to be consistent, why is that not followed?  "WP style" seems like a circular argument, not a real reason.   Number two: "film" is an anachronism today, regardless of what the name of your major.  "Movie" is used NOT just in N. America, even if it is mainly.  Also, who cares if other countries WRONGLY use an out-dated term like "film", when "movie" (which is short for "moving image" or "motion picture") is actually in a sense more accurate?   "Movie" IS used in Wikipedia also.  I mean, yeah, I understand your thing about "repitition" in the lede "movie" then a little later "movie theater" again...but so what?   If that's the word, that's the word.  "Film" is not a correct word anymore, even though morons like Spike Lee love to overly use that anachronistic term.  They're "movies", not really "films".   Just the facts.   As far as 3RR, the reverts were NOT all for the same thing, as that is what the policy is about.   I did not go beyond 3RR for ANY specific matter.   I'm careful with that.  Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You've misunderstood the three-revert rule.
 * You just performed three reversions at 2012 Aurora shooting in a span of less than 40 minutes, so you need to stop. —David Levy 08:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You just performed three reversions at 2012 Aurora shooting in a span of less than 40 minutes, so you need to stop. —David Levy 08:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I take what you say on the other points, but as far as 3RR, I see what is quoted, but I don't understand WHY it should have anything to do with reverts dealing with DIFFERENT UNRELATED MATTERS, even if in the same article. If so, then I stand corrected. But doesn't it seem more apropos if it's 4 reverts in 24 hours dealing with the same specific situation?  Just my opinion... But if so, then that's the case. Thank you. Jots and graphs (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, just a note, to your address your "language evolves" argument. Firstly, I know that already, and sometimes words take on different meaning than they really truly originally mean (such as "apology" which really meant defense or explanation, NOT "I'm sorry".)  But that argument can go so far, only because in this case with "film", it's ONLY because people have WRONGLY been using that term, stemming from the fact that at one time, the celluloid etc was used as a the medium FOR motion pictures.  Human nature.   But the problem with that is that if we want to be honest, is that if the word "film" means something else now, it's only because people (such as yourself and Spike Lee) have been forcing it to be that way, not because it actually is that way.   Fact is (WP imperfect styles and preferences notwithstanding) they're NOT really "films".  They're not on film, or anything like that.  And the term "movie" is NEVER something incorrect.  Because regardless of the substance or medium used, whether digital or film, they'll still always be "moving images" or "movies".  I never use the word "film" anymore in conversation, and that's not really "original research" or "my way".  I did not invent the fact that "film" is not what's used anymore in making movies.  It's simply a fact that is. So why use the word when that's not what it is?  Because "language evolves"?   Yeah, especially when it's being forced that way, regardless of actual accuracy or trueness.   Let's face it.  You may deny it.  But many people still use the word "film" SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY LIKE THE WAY IT SOUNDS. Not because it's really correct.  Just saying.  Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I see that you removed the previous discussion. I agree that there was no point in continuing it. I just want to again mention the the three-revert rule. Not counting the vandalism reversion and self-reversion, you just reverted four times in a span of less than 40 minutes. You appear to have subsequently reached an agreement with Mfhiller above, but you need to stop reverting and focus on discussing the disputed content with others. (To be clear, I'm not taking anyone's side.) Thank you. —David Levy 16:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And now...
Dear Jots and Graphs. Wikipedia is encyclopaedic and therefore does not allow speculation, personal opinions, loaded terms, etc. You have reverted two recent edits of mine that actually do cohere with POV guidelines. The first, the one regarding Vicodin, makes a point of view assumption about the connection between a certain celebrity and the suspect. I will revert your change. The second, the one regarding terrorism, also makes a POV assumption regarding the legitimate use of the term "terrorism." Keep in mind that not everyone who uses WP lives in the United States where the word "terrorism" is as common as "apple pie." I will also revert this change. Let me remind you that there are rules about edit warring on WP. Mfhiller (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller


 * You MIGHT have a little bit of a point about the Vicodin reference (especially with Heath Ledger). But sorry, no way is there any "POV" with the words "not part of a terrorist organization", when that very word is in the reference given, and was all over the news...that he was NOT part of a terrorist organization, despite his get-up and gear.  It's in the ref.  It's not saying he was a terrorist, but that he wasn't, or not part of a group of terrorists. So?  What's the problem with that? Especially if it's in the ref citation? Jots and graphs (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. It is in the ref. Please undue my change (regarding "terrorism"). I won't revert. There is plenty of time to revise article. Cheers. Mfhiller (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to revert agreed upon changes you may be blocked from editing. Mfhiller (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * hello. Not sure why you did what you did.  The projection is amusing.  I thought things were cool the other night.   I only said that you might have a point about the Vicodin thing REGARDING THE HEATH LEDGER REFERENCE.   But you were out of line writing all that mess on my page, and not writing me on the ARTICLE talk page, as is WP policy and protocol.  And you accuse me of something you're maybe guilty of too, if that's case.   You have not been "edit warring" on this matter?   Nothing was totally "agreed upon". You arguably violate WP policy for not even looking at or addressing what I wrote in the Talk page.  But rudely ignored it, and don't care.   You said every editor besides me doesn't want that reference there.  That's not true.  I was not even the one who put that Vicodin reference there. That was others.   Nothing has been totally settled about that.  The item is sourced.   What is the problem with including it, except for you not liking it?  With the front excuse that it's not sourced well enough?  Maybe it's not perfect, but sources are there.  Please don't write stuff on my page either.  I did not violate 3RR, nor edit warred any more than YOU did, if that's the case.  So please refrain from saying that on my talk page.  That was NOT "civil".   Please TAKE IT TO THE ARTICLE TALK.  Not my talk.  Thank you. Jots and graphs (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not revert controversial change regarding Vicodin at 2012 Aurora shooting without discussing on talk first. You have been informed of the 3RR rule several times by at least two different editors. If you persist I will take this up formally as I believe you have continuously disrupted editing. At least twice you have removed content from your own talk page from two different editors (including myself regarding 3RR). You have a right to do this. However, in the process you are failing to recognise that your edits are disruptive because they are not consistent with the majority view on talk. For everyone to see, your recent comments on my talk page. Hugs and kisses. Mfhiller (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

I told you to stop this already
You're getting on my nerves now.

Number one: I ALREADY DID discuss on article talk quite a bit, and wrote much on Talk.

Number two: stop bringing up other unrelated junk that is not even true. I did NOT violate 3RR in this matter. So stop mentioning that, it's irrelevant, and a logical fallacy.

Number three: You're being kind of hypocritical, because YOU are not discussing this on talk, but even said in your edit comment "it doesn't matter what you wrote on talk".

Number four: I told you not to write stuff on my talk page anymore, but only the article talk. You seem like a big hypocrite, and guilty of projection problems. Accusing me of stuff you're guilty of. Don't address me again. I'm serious. I already wrote copiously on the article talk...and you never addressed anything I wrote there. Yet you keep doing this. Please refrain. Thank you. Jots and graphs (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I'm NOT putting back the Vicodin reference anymore. As I don't care anymore. But OTHERS have been putting it back... I'm not dealing with it anymore though. It's not worth the stress. But if other editors are doing it (which I noticed one just did) don't blame me or think it's me. Because I'm not bothering with the Vicodin reference anymore. I have things to do. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

More of the same rant moved from 2012 Aurora shooting talk
Mfhiller is accusing others of what he is arguably guilty of. He has not been "edit warring" by constantly reverting? But in circular logic, because he thinks he's right, it can't be edit warring when he constantly reverts. I never violated 3RR on this or anything, yet he keeps belching that to me, writing nonsense on my talk page, as if it means anything. And NO, regardless of his paranoia, I'm NOT that IP address. Nice assuming good faith though. And Canoe is obviously ridiculous. I have a right to remove nonsense from whiners on my page, that are not warranted. I warned Mfhiller myself to please keep that unreasonable hypocritical inflammatory stuff out of my page, but to only address on this talk page, the stuff I said... He never did. I wrote copiously on this talk page regarding this Vicodin nonsense. Yet he said in an edit comment: "it doesn't matter what you wrote". Then he writes junk on my page saying to take it to the article talk. EVEN THOUGH I DID ALREADY. But he never addresses what I wrote here. There are too many of these types on Wikipedia unfortunately. And it gets stressful, after a while. Mfhiller is guilty of edit-warring, yet he doesn't think so, simply because he thinks he's right on the issue. Circular reasoning. He has reverted constantly. And I have NOT done so as much on this as he has, yet he crows "you've been warned about 3RR", even though I never violated it. But has he? If that's the case. Projection much? Anyway, again, despite his nonsense and paranoia and rudeness and suspicions, I'm NOT that IP address. And I don't appreciate this type of neurotic accusation of me of that on this talk page, so recklessly. That itself is a violation, of Wiki Etiquette and policies. Which I'm sure he'll accuse me of now for being blunt about his nonsense. Anyway, I'm done. I told him already that I'm NOT putting back that Vicodin reference anymore, as I don't care anymore. But other editors seem to be doing so, that are NOT me. So don't blame me, or think it's me. I'm not interested in that anymore. Not worth the stress. I have things to do. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL
LOL...wow, you really are something. You actually included stuff that was NOT EVEN RELATED TO THE WHOLE VICODIN MATTER, because in your mind you think it makes your case, which is a logical fallacy. I never actually really violated 3RR, in that OTHER matter, and that Admin was just giving me a friendly warning (as is done with many others in other cases in general) to be careful, and reminded me that 3RR does not just involve a specific thing in an article, but anything in one article, within 24 hours. No sweat. He's cool. But I never violated 3RR on this later Vicodin matter at all. So why are you even bringing that up? (We know why...)   But to do all this that you did here is a bit strange, sir. You actually went trolling on my page history and the article talk page, and copied and pasted the exchanges. Instead of just being cool and leaving this alone already, as I said already I moved on and wasn't even gonna bother with the stupid Vicodin reference anymore, as I don't care anymore.

Did you miss or not understand the part where I said I WAS NOT DEALING with the Vicodin matter anymore at all, and that I don't care? If it stays or goes, is whatever. It's no big deal to me. I never even violated 3RR on this. I wrote a lot on the article talk page about the matter, stuff that you never bothered addressing. Doesn't matter though, because I let this go already.

But...

I notice that you conveniently LEFT OUT all I said in the article Talk, regarding the Vicodin reference, THE STUFF THAT YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORED AND NEVER ADDRESSED, even though you said recently "discuss on Talk". Did you miss it? Did you not see it? Or you saw it, but didn't want to include that here in your weird copy-paste fest?

Well anyway, here it is, that you omitted (that you'll probably remove from here anyway, so as to leave an incomplete impression of what went on). I'm probably stupid myself for even wasting time with you, since I detected early on that you had a problem. No one's perfect, but this is ridiculous.

Anyway, this here is what you left out, this whole exchange, that you never bothered participating in....

Significance of the Vicodin reference in article
It's been asked why even have the Vicodin thing in the article, and how is it significant or relevant, since it's not an illegal drug. Ok, here goes: It was reported that because he was high on Vicodin (you can get high on 'legal' drugs too), and it was in his system at the time of the arrest, that that was one reason why he was calm and docile. Not sure why some editors don't believe that, or think that that was a "hood-wink". It was not explained by editor why that has to be a "hood-wink". It's a known fact that Vicodin WILL do that to a person. So? Why try to hide that fact? If it's reported it's reported. It's not up to us to decide per POV that it's a "hood-wink". That's not our role as Wikipedians. Also, by the way, Vicodin CAN be illegal, when not prescribed, as we all know. Regardless, though, it was stated by ABC news that that was one main reason he was calm and not resisting when approached and arrested. Vicodin can do that to a person. Make them drowsy and mellow. I think that that point should be made in the article, regarding Holmes. Jots and graphs (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If it is the case that the medication caused him to be calm, or not resist, or whatever, then that needs to be in the article. The fact that he had Vicodin in his system is no more notable than the presence of caffeine, or sugar or any other chemical, unless a particular consequence is established. WWGB (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The vicodin, along with the body armor brings to mind the North_Hollywood_shootout where the assailants were armored, and used drugs to control their mood and possibly become more resistant to return fire. This shoting has echos from several previous incidents (north hollywood, norway shooting etc) where several elements seem copy-catted. The north hollywood connection was made by at least one RS http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/heart-without-compromise-children-and-children-wit/2012/jul/21/john-eagen-holmes-joins-roster-serial-killers-whil/ Gaijin42 (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To WWGB...I'm not sure why it isn't. That point arguably needs to be put in. Jots and graphs (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now added words to describe the significance of the Vicodin. WWGB (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Jots and graphs - just to be perfectly clear, my objection to inclusion of this detail has absolutely nothing to do with whether it explains Holmes' demeanor at the time of his arrest. There are, however, several serious concerns that brought me here:
 * (1) alleged use of the drug was reported by a layperson who equates Vicodin with hydrocodone (Vicodin is a hydrocodone/acetaminophen compound, not a single drug);
 * (2) if the claim indeed refers to a quantity of Vicodin totalling 100 mg of hydrocodone, which it presumably does, then it would also indicate possible acetaminophen overdose for which he was not reportedly evaluated;
 * (3) unless Holmes is discovered to have developed chronic tolerance to hydrocodone, a single dose of 100 mg at 2.5 hours would've presumably left him struggling to sit upright;
 * (4) every reputable media organization reporting this claim cites KMGH-TV as their source, who in turn cite an unnamed source, who cites an unnamed public servant, who cites Holmes. In other words, someone says someone said someone said someone said someone admitted to taking a controversial medication. That's way below our editorial standards around here, especially on a BLP. —  C M B J   05:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I said that it should be carefully worded as "it's been REPORTED that such and such with Vicodin". Why?  Because it's simply a fact that it's been reported...in reliable sources...regardless of the trail.   But omitting and leaving out, just because the source situation may not be 1000% perfect, and the connections not as best as we want in every nuance seems over-cautious and wiki-uptight. If we do that with everything, eventually, we'll have next to nothing to ever write in articles, after a while.   Some things are more solid than other things, true, but the point is that it could be stated that it's been reported by some sources.   NOT that it's necessarily absolute fact.  Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced that quadruple-plus-hearsay based on a single unnamed source is appropriate for any biographical article on this project, unless said dissemination is itself the direct subject of critical commentary. However, even if we were to include the information in an appropriate fashion, it's still not likely to pan out very well unless we can reach strong consensus on wording. Otherwise, it's just going to continue morphing into sensationalistic nonsense again and again and again, or else someone's going to eventually get accused of edit warring for keeping a veracious version alive. —  C M B J   08:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, for verity and veracity etc, but my point is we can't go bananas with that and be too dogmatic and over-scrupulous much either. With so much wiki-lawyering and uptightness. Because if that goes on too much, then pertinent or insightful factoids and issues can go un-stated, leaving an article lacking and incomplete.   Because again, my question is why would ABC News (both on the Net and on Television News) see fit to mention it, if it was so frivolous and "hearsay"?  Last time I checked, ABC News is a "reliable source".  And they brought that point out.   Also, I'm not saying that for sure that that was the reason Holmes was so calm and docile and non-resistant with the police approached and arrested him...but ABC news seems to think so, as at least a possibility as to why, as reported.    Why leave this thing out if it can help explain perhaps in part why Holmes offered no resistance, and was calm and subdued, when taken by police?   Again, this was not just written in some blog or forum or message board or group chat, but reported by ABC News.  Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As Vicodin is a specific combination of two drugs - 5 mg of hydrocodone and 500mg of acetaminophen - that would mean he took 20 Vicodin, which includes 10 grams of acetaminophen - and would most likely be in a hospital with severe liver damage now. It could be that he took 10 Nocor - a Nocor is 10 mg of hydrocodone and 325mg of acetaminophen - which would contain 3.25 grams of acetaminophen - in any event, I don't see how the claim as to the level of hydrocodone found in his system will ever be correlated to the brand name and/or dosage that he ingested.173.74.10.29 (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And here below is the part that you left out that was just before my comment where I said you were paranoid for accusing me of being that IP address (which I'm not)

Should the article be semi-protected to prevent non-autoconfirmed accounts from editing?
There understandably is a lot of traffic on the article. There are numerous new accounts, some, but certainly not all, of which have repeatedly caused problems. Mfhiller (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * An edit request I put in was declined, frankly I think the trouble with the disruptive IP's has become too much. Since the traffic is so high, I believe any edit requests can be easily resolved so I would support semi-protection. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  19:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did anyone see if they were warned on their talk pages and whether it had any effect? They may learn from warnings and become better editors. I think we should allow IP edits and just deal with the repeat offenders for this reason. --Canoe1967 (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, they can learn editing Paris Hilton.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (Mfhiller's unfounded accusation:)


 * The users Jots and graphs and 178.37.236 have both been warned several times by at least two different editors about edit warring. Interestingly the warnings and discussions have been removed in both cases, at almost exactly the same time. Hmmm.... Mfhiller (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller


 * I don't think there's a connection based on other pages contributed to. (the IP was focusing on a fire in Spain as well) Ryan Vesey  Review me!  19:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Should someone revert their talk pages, and keep doing so as a lesson?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no lesson there and someone doing that could be blocked. WP:TPO allows you to remove warnings from your talk page. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  19:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just kidding. Has anyone applied for protection yet?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's something to consider, if this was semi-protected we might not have information on the lawsuit. Hopefully the editor would have used the edit request process.  In any case, we have the declined request for semi-protection and Jorgath left a request for that to be reconsidered.  No other news. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  21:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And also this here...

Vicodin
Do we include it in this article? Consensus here to avoid further edit wars.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose inclusion unless/until confirmed by official medical reports. —  C M B J   06:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Belongs on Holmes page. Also poorly supported. Mfhiller (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is already being discussed above. Let's not fragment this discussion any worse than it already is. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone move this section to above? Mfhiller (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mildly support inclusion, per my words above. It's sourced, albeit maybe not totally perfectly, but well arguably enough.  And wording should be careful to say "it's been reported".  ABC News (on the Net and on the TV news) has stated this, and ABC News is reliable and reputable. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Calmly oppose, unless we also blame the shoes he was wearing and a band he listened to. Maybe Grand Theft Auto. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: nowhere in the reporting or phrasing or anything is it "blaming" the Vicodin.  Your argument is a STRAW-MAN, because that's NOT what was done at all there.  So if that's your reason for your "calmly oppose", you should probably re-consider that, to a "calm support".  Because the Vicodin thing was not (repeat NOT) "blaming" it for his actions.   If anything, the reports were only that that's why Holmes was CALM AND DOCILE when being arrested.   So please don't erect a straw-man or phantom argument, as your reason for opposing the inclusion of the Vicodin reference.  Because that's not the reason for the matter of Vicodin being brought up.   Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

{{collapse| {{done}} &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's basically all of it, I think. The rest of the actual pertinent and important exchanges related to the actual matter in the first place. That you left out. I mean, sir, if you're gonna put all the stuff that is not even related, as well as stuff from various pages, you really should do it right...and put ALL the words and comments and related exchanges. Only fair, huh? It's your page, and you can do what you want, but I figured I'd add the stuff you conveniently omitted. And that is actually very pertinent. Probably THE most pertinent. Seems fair.

And as I said clearly before. In the spirit of peace and letting the matter drop, and if there was consensus building, I was letting this go, as it was never even that important to me. I was NOT gonna put back that Vicodin thing anymore, because I didn't care anymore. And it wasn't worth the stress or disputes. I was simply telling you that, and please don't accuse me and write rude stuff on my page...THAT WAS IT. All this other stuff was not necessary. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough
Thanks for adding all of the pertinent Vicodin exchange to my talk page. I wasn't finished yet. You have helped. I will organise. Btw I'm not building "a case" of any kind. Your comments are just amusing. I'm curious about your definition of "logical fallacy". Can you please add that to my talk page too?

Otherwise, please don't take any of this personally. I'm sorry that I have upset you. I don't want you to become discouraged editing WP but you will come across many editors similar to myself who take what you say seriously. I understand that I am only provoking you now and will stop. The Aurora shooting will have a WP article from now on and there is a lot of time to make changes. I hope you've heard the sentiment here - it is apologetic, friendly, encouraging. Cheers. Mfhiller (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller


 * Ok, in response to what you just wrote to me on my talk page, asking me what the "logical fallacy" was...I was merely saying that EVEN IF I pushed 3RR in other matters days ago, on the article (or wherever) that doesn't mean I necessarily violated 3RR on this whole Vicodin matter. As far as I can tell I did NOT revert 4 times in less than 24 hours on that.   That Admin days ago, with that other matter, instructed and gave a friendly warning about 4 reverts in 24 hours in the SAME article, regardless if it's a related specific matter in the article.  I wasn't sure on that, so he was good to tell me...so I know for sure.   That was days ago.  I was saying that that whole exchange with him WAS NOT REALLY RELEVANT to the specific matter now, as I did NOT violate 3RR on the Vicodin revert nonsense.  You reverted sometimes, I reverted sometimes, spread out...not even that much.  So I was not sure why you felt the need to say "warn 3RR you'll be blocked" and to here paste that stuff that had nothing to do with Vicodin...  Unless it was just to poison the well, with ad hom irrelevance, that is logically fallacious, as it is not addressing the actual current and specific matter at hand.   Meaning, that a person could theoretically be the worst person in the world, with all past violations, in past things, and still in a current situation or case regardless still be telling you the truth or still be in the right.   Not saying that I was a big violator before, because I wasn't.   I may have edit-warred a little bit with something else, but so were others, and it was not the end of the world, as I listened to what that Admin told me, and abided by it no problem.   Here, though, with Vicodin, I did NOT do 4 reverts in a day...  So was technically ok, though that's not the only thing we know that constitutes edit-warring.  You were reverting too, though.    Also, I felt that the thing was NOT really settled, and I had spoken things on talk that you never answered.   And it was still left open, with no solid consensus yet.  Remember, other editors put that Vicodin stuff in the article, not just I.  But as I said, I don't really care about it anymore.   It's not that big a deal.  I agree that more solid refs and medical sources etc would be better.   Anyway, that's basically it.   Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask what the logical fallacy was because there isn't one. I asked you to explain your idea of what constitutes a logical fallacy. Mfhiller (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to save you a bit of time... a logical fallacy can be determined by the rules of symbolic logic. There is an important difference between logical and practical fallacies. The statement "The sun is shining today and the sun is not shining today" involves a logical fallacy as per the rule of identity (A=A). Circular reasoning is quite a different matter: it is not a logical but a practical fallacy because it does not contradict mathematical rules. Can you explain the fallacy of circular reasoning? Mfhiller (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller


 * I'm not gonna be on the merry-go-round with you forever on this. Yes, there was a logical fallacy, when you neurotically bring up that situation that was NOT RELATED AT ALL to the Vicodin thing and where I did NOT violate 3RR on this specific situation, in an attempt to POISON THE WELL against me. Where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting the target person. With "aha, you see what happened with him here, so he MUST be wrong in this case too" is A LOGICAL FALLACY, whether you think it is or not, or think it's actually happening or not.  What was the point of bringing that up and weirdly pasting it here if it was not to try to bias the readers to try to make the inflammatory point of "you see, this editor has a problem with 3RR, so why is it hard to believe he's doing it here", even though I did not actually do it with the Vicodin thing?  Why not stick ONLY to the relevant actual current specific case and situation?  I'll tell you, why, because you know you have no real case, so you need to borrow from other cases, that you THINK will bolster up your nonsense.  Logical fallacy. As I said, I do NOT really want to deal with you.  You seem a bit over-the-top.   I'm not perfect either, I know...  But you got issues.  You could have (and should have) let this go already, because you see clearly I said that I was NOT bothering with the Vicodin thing anymore, and if it got removed, I would not do anything.  Yet you did all this craziness on your page.  Funny in a way, but unnecessary.


 * It was bad enough that you pasted stuff from the article talk page that was sort of relevant...but then to paste PAST UNRELATED junk, just because an Admin said in a past thing, that was not even that big a deal, "be careful with 3RR", even though in this actual Vicodin case, I did NOT go beyond 3RR, was jerky and logically fallacious. Notice how you did not paste ANY evidence of dates where I reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours, with the Vicodin matter.  Why didn't you?   Because I did not do that...and you know I didn't.   So you have to appeal to junk that was not really relevant to the actual specific thing here.   You think that by saying "there is no logical fallacy" somehow makes it not a logical fallacy... Look up POISONING THE WELL on Wikipedia, and see that you're wrong.  And see that that IS what you did here, in a real way.   To try to build some case against me, that doesn't mean anything.  Though you'll deny it was for that reason.  But if this was only done for amusement purposes or whatever, as you told me on my talk page, then that is not exactly a good reason, as Wikipedia is not really for that purpose, even if it's your own talk page.   It's whatever.   There are MANY logical fallacies in life...obviously.  If you start with your original premise that you're right, but if you do the same things I was doing (or even worse) as far as reverts etc, it somehow can't be "edit-warring" when you do it, because, hey, your position on the Vicodin sourcing was correct, so it doesn't apply to you, if you revert over and over again.  But since I reverted sometimes (NOT beyond 3RR though), I warrant rude neurotic warnings from you on my talk page, and "3RR" remarks and jabs.  Because hey, my position was wrong, so it has to apply in my case.   Not to yours, cuz you're right.    And the fallacy of irrelevance or poisoning the well are definitely examples.  You did that in a way, whether you admit or not.


 * Also, why didn't you ever bother to actually address all that I actually wrote in the article talk page?  You never engaged me there.   But felt the need to just comment and complain on my talk page. That kind of proved that you didn't really want to discuss it, because you felt it was settled and it didn't matter what I wrote.  That was kind of rude.  But yeah, by bringing up and pasting past unrelated stuff, not directly involving at all the Vicodin edits, it was just to cloud things, and poison the well, and cause bias maybe.  Because if it wasn't for that, then what was even the reason to paste or bring up stuff that was NOT really related to the whole Vicodin edits and reverts and talk comments?  What was the actual point?  Jots and graphs (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding all of the pertinent Vicodin exchange to my talk page. I wasn't finished yet. You have helped. I will organise. Btw I'm not building "a case" of any kind. Your comments are just amusing. I'm curious about your definition of "logical fallacy". Can you please add that to my talk page too? Otherwise, please don't take any of this personally. I'm sorry that I have upset you. I don't want you to become discouraged editing WP but you will come across many editors similar to myself who take what you say seriously. I understand that I am only provoking you now and will stop. The Aurora shooting will have a WP article from now on and there is a lot of time to make changes. I hope you've heard the sentiment here - it is apologetic, friendly, encouraging. Cheers. Mfhiller (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller I didn't ask what the logical fallacy was because there isn't one. I asked you to explain your idea of what constitutes a logical fallacy. Mfhiller (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Just to save you a bit of time... a logical fallacy can be determined by the rules of symbolic logic. There is an important difference between logical and practical fallacies. The statement "The sun is shining today and the sun is not shining today" involves a logical fallacy as per the rule of identity (A=A). Circular reasoning is quite a different matter: it is not a logical but a practical fallacy because it does not contradict mathematical rules. Can you explain the fallacy of circular reasoning? Mfhiller (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller OK Jots and graphs. I have already sent you a conciliatory message. Let me repeat it: I don't want you to become discouraged editing WP but you will come across many editors similar to myself who take what you say seriously. I understand that I am only provoking you now and will stop. The Aurora shooting will have a WP article from now on and there is a lot of time to make changes. I hope you've heard the sentiment here - it is apologetic, friendly, encouraging. That doesn't mean that you understand what a logical fallacy is. Only statements that contradict rules that can be derived from A=A constitute logical fallacies. An example of a rule that can be derived from A=A is ~(A&~A) - or written in English rather than symbolic logic: from the rule A equals A we can also say that both A and not-A cannot be true, as in the statement "The sun is shining today and the sun is not shining today." This is not my "opinion," as you claim, but the opinion of all logicians and mathematicians since at least Aristotle. In fact, there would be no such thing as non-Euclidean geometry without the law of identity A=A because the arguments against a single geometry (i.e., Euclidean geometry ) follow exactly all of these rules. DGAF Mfhiller (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There are DIFFERENT TYPES of logical fallacy, not just breaking the law of non-contradiction, etc.  Poisoning the well is one of them.  Anyway, it was cute and bratty what you did, and I got a kick out of it also.  I just felt it was unfair to bring up that unrelated matter, to try to bias minds about me possibly, about whether I was actually violating "3RR" in THIS specific case.   Did you look up the "Poisoning the well" article?  In part it says:  "In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may produce a biased result, in an attempt to discredit the target person." (Wikipedia)   Anyway, it's whatever, at this point.  Who cares...  The main point is that I always defer to real genuine consensus on WP talk etc, even if I personally disagree.   If more editors don't think the Vicodin is properly or ideally or fully sourced, and for now is better to leave the point out of the article, I would go along with that.  And if it seems that more contributors think it's ok to have it, then that's them, because I myself am NOT doing anything more with the Vicodin matter anymore.   Also, again, what really is the point of doing all of this on your talk page?  Pasting silly stuff about me and exchanges onto here?   What does that even really accomplish?  It's not like so many people will even necessarily see it, and even if they do, so what?  It's a silly as well as finished matter, overall.   So why bother really?  Wouldn't you be busy with other things?  Jots and graphs (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

To your remarks to me on my talk, saying that poisoning the well is a form of argumentum ad hominem and is only "an error in reasoning" and not "a logical fallacy", and that distinction is "crucial" (??), because one may be formally true or not etc. Sorry but in all practical purposes (without being too picayune and semantical and nit-picky about terms, like the whole thing I was told not to be about "film", because we have "dial", which I already know, and I know about "mix tape" even though it's actually a CD, etc etc.   This "it's an error in reasoning" and not "a logical fallacy"....DISTINCTION WITHOUT A REAL DIFFERENCE.   Because if the overall argument is "well he did this before, so he MUST be doing it now", that's fallacious, erroneous, flawed, or whatever you wanna call it.

In fact, in the WP article on "Poisoning the well" (which I have a feeling you never went to like I asked), it says:

"Poisoning the well can take the form of an (explicit or implied) argument, and is considered by some philosophers a logical fallacy.[1]"

So some educated logicians and philosophers etc DO consider "Poisoning the well" in the category of "logical fallacy"...officially or whatever way.

The point is even if there are some (?) differences or distinctions, I obviously meant "logical fallacy" in a broader sense....and you KNOW what I mean! Regardless of just HOW "erroneous" the action or argument of yours was, in drumming up that silly stuff with that Admin about a week ago, of whether I actually broke 3RR or not, or that I didn't maybe fully realize that it does not just involve a specific matter on one article, but involves ANY matter on one specific article, 4 reverts in less than 24 hours, that other matter really has nothing actually to do with whether I actually violated "3RR" in this other matter of Vicodin edits. A valid argument would be citing and pasting actual edit dates and times I did with Vicodin. You never did that. Because I never went beyond 3 reverts with Vicodin edits, in 24 hours. So "fallacy" or "error", you understand the point. It's whatever though. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)