At great personal effort, I have determined that the root cause of RK's recent post to
this mailing list regarding Stevertigo is a simple misunderstanding on the part of RK.
RK misattributed two paragraphs of text, claiming on the talk page that they were
added by Stevertigo. In fact they were added by an anonymous IP who has
subsequently created a new account "La Minturnesa".
The edit in question is this one:
http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Christian-
Jewish_reconciliation&diff=1509331&oldid=1509289
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Christian-
Jewish_reconciliation&diff=1509331&oldid=1509289
Details of edit: "04:34, 1 Oct 2003 . . 205.188.208.42"
I'm sure Stevertigo will join me in forgiving RK for this understandable lapse in
concentration, and I look forward to Stevertigo receiving a similar apology to the one
that RK so graciously gave to Jtdirl upon making a similar error.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
Robert wrote:
> Can someone get "Louis Kyu Won Ryu" to stop vandalizing my
> home page?
For the record, it's Robert's TALK page.
> He probably is Martin, but I will pretend otherwise. for the moment
For the record, I'm not Louis. A developer could probably prove this beyond
reasonable doubt. Further, I do not know who Louis might be, or if sie is anyone I
know. Like Mr. Kaiser, I can speculate. Unlike Mr. Kaiser, I will do so privately.
> Martin has assumed other false identities in the past.
For the record, I have only one account on Wikipedia, and that is
[[user:MyRedDice]], where I give my full legal name, my work address, a non-
disposable email address, and a self-photo. I have never had any other Wikipedia
accounts.
On the other hand, I've previously engaged on a forum which strongly encouraged
the adoption and theft of multiple ever-changing identities. Perhaps this is what RK
is referring to?
http://www.algonet.se/~kajn/
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
This harassment is totally out of control. Martin
(MyRedDice) is till vandalizing my talk page.
Stop this harassment at once. And will people kindly remove
the anti-Catholic diatribes?
RK
=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Perhaps it's not about who's "lost their cool" but more about what is
the best way to write _neutrally_ about a controversial subject.
I've just spent the better part of 2 hours looking over the various
edits and comments. Much of what was reverted looked significant
NPOV-deficient to me.
Let's try to leave personalities out of this, and figure out how to fix
the article -- or at least come up with a solution to the current
impasse, so the article can be un-protected.
By the way, would some admin (other than me) please add to the top of
[[Christian-Jewish reconciliation]] the standard text about ''the
neutrality of this page is disputed''? I don't dare do it myself,
because of the guideline about "he who protects a page must not edit
it".
Ed Poor
> By the way, would some admin (other than me) please
> add to the top of
> [[Christian-Jewish reconciliation]] the standard
> text about ''the
> neutrality of this page is disputed''? I don't dare
> do it myself,
> because of the guideline about "he who protects a
> page must not edit
> it".
> > Ed Poor
>IMHO, I think that that is protesting the page
anyway.
>This is the type of case where it's the spirit of the
>law, not the letter. If you think that the neutrality
>of the article is disputed, then you can't edit it
>(unless we want to change that rule partially).
LDan
If you think that the neutrality of an article is
disputed, then you can't edit it even to put a lack of
neutrality banner on it ?
I think this is deeply curious. One would say on the
contrary that the one disputing an article could
precisely be the one adding a banner. And that once an
article is protected, it is so obvious that its
neutrality is disputed, that anyone could put a banner
without fearing to be breaching any rule.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Brian,
Sometimes the best way to deal with a conflict is to show some
appreciation for each party.
By the way, I like what you said about a "parallel universe". I often
feel that way when confronted by someone else's version of "reality".
Why, there are even economists who believe that increasing the capital
gains tax rate will make poor people richer! ;-)
Ed Poor
I am appalled that people are refusing to read the full
text of Stevertigo's comments, and are snipping tiny pieces
of them to prove their points. (i.e. that he is somehow not
anti-Jewish.)
Stevertigo has and is writing non-stop anti-Semitic rants,
and attacking *me* for standing up to this is irrational at
best, and flat out anti-Semitic at worst.
Did you even read the letter I sent here? Did you even read
the edits of the articles mentioned? Isn't pushing
Neo-Nazism (or Chrisitan Identity theology) considered
anti-Semitic anymore? Or is that now Ok?
People, read the material he keeps shoving in the articles!
He is totally fabricating Jewish beliefs, and then
attacking Jews for these non-existent beliefs. READ THE
FULL TEXT OF WHAT HE ADDED. What about this is so hard to
understand?
RK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Am I in some sort of parallel universe?
I just sent out the entire article that (I believe) Robert referred to
where HE snipped out sentences and phrases out of context.
Also, RK posted this to the Talk page a few minutes ago:
"Didn't anyone notice the red flag terms? Only Christian Identity adherents
and members of he Ku Klux Klan use the term "racialist? In any case,
Stevertigo is slandering the entire Jewish community; Jews are '''not'''
slandering Chrisitans as "racists", let alone as "racialists". He is
fabricating positions, and then attacking Jews for these positions which
only exist in his mind. That is called Jew-baiting, and it is anti-Semitic
by definition. [[User:RK|RK]] 20:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)"
Yet, according to the page history
<http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Christian-Jewish_reconcili…>,
RK ADDED THE TEXT WITH THAT WORD IN HIMSELF -- where the word "racialist"
is used {10:38, 1 Oct 2003 . . RK (Discussion of racist rant against
Jews.)} whilst describing what he claims Stevertigo has said. I don't know
where RK gets this from, but now it just looks to me like RK is flat-out
lying and attempting to "plant evidence" -- as silly as that seems when
anyone can go back and look at the history. Can't someone do something
about this escalating conflict!
At 09:47 PM 10/1/03 +0000, you wrote:
>Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Robert <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com>
>
>I am appalled that people are refusing to read the full
>text of Stevertigo's comments, and are snipping tiny pieces
>of them to prove their points. (i.e. that he is somehow not
>anti-Jewish.)
Robert mentioned:
> fabricating Jewish beliefs, and then
> attacking Jews for these non-existent beliefs
Well, that kind of stuff certainly has no place in an encyclopedia
article. It's easy to win an argument by putting words in your
opponent's mouth.
But "standing up" to another Wikipedian might not be as useful as
REFRAMING their arguments as POV. Just locate the source of the
"offending" statement and mention in the article that White Supremacists
or Neo-Nazis or Holocaust Deniers believe (this or that). Why kick up
such a fuss?
Sorry I didn't plow through the "full text", but that will take more
time than I have. Sometimes snipping away is the best strategy, like
doctors debriding dead flesh from a wound.
Sincerely,
Ed Poor