Martin,
I have often taught math to kids, and my specialty is "word problems".
May I help you with you math?
The following statement need re-factoring:
"X says Y about Z and they meant W"
How about this?
A says that when X said Y about Z, they meant W.
Can you handle an equation with five variables?
An alternate 'solution' is:
X said Y about Z.
A said that X meant W.
I have run across nearly a dozen examples that fit this formula on
Friday and today (lazy bum that I am, I took the weekend off).
* Wesley Clark's statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda
=> "A" quotes Clark as linking Iraq being buddy-buddy with Al Qaeda a
couple years ago
=> "A" quates Clank as saying recently that Iraq NEVER had a link with
Al Qaeda
Then, good reporter that he is, "A" quotes Clark as saying that the two
(apparently contradictory) statements aren't really contradictory.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/12CLAR.html
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Dear Robert.
I see you have decided to accuse me of censorship again. I (and Danny, and
Viajero, and MIRV, and lots of other people) have already explained in great detail
the reason for mercilessly editing the text in question. However. I thought I might
usefully summarise the problem, with the help of an analogy.
The issue, as Ed Poor notes, is that generally we wish to state "X says Y about Z".
However, the removed text generally went further than that, essentially stating "X
says Y about Z and they meant W". This W is an interpretation, and as such it
expresses a point of view.
By analogy, I might write the following:
== Wikipedians who view democracy as hatred ==
Robert Kaiser, noted for his description of Wikipedia as a "home for lying, leftist anti-
Semites", has come out strongly against democracy. In a mailing list post, to wiken-l,
January 12 2004, he wrote that "Facts are not defined by votes. Only hatred is."
-----
This illustrates the key problem - that by taking words out of context and placing
them under a header that expresses an interpretation of those words, it is possible to
have text that expresses a point of view, even though the actual quotes are precise
and well-referenced. This is precisely the problem with much of the text in question.
However, on the topic of censorship, I see you decided to deleted the entirety of
"Support" section of the article on "alternative medicine". Given your new and heroic
stand against deleting dodgy text and in favour of fixing it, I trust that we shall see
you take a fresh approach on such issues in the future?
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
Dear Robert.
I must inform you that I have yet to edit your HOME page, and have in fact only
edited your TALK page. In other words, I have edited "user talk:RK", but not
"user:RK". As such, when you say that
> Martin is still making non-stop personal attacks on me on my own home page
you are being somewhat economic with the truth. This contrasts with your own
behaviour, in that you really have edited my HOME page, at "user:MyRedDice".
Specifically, you deleted everything there, and wrote in its place:
> I promote vandalizing other people's user pages. After all, if I can do it to others,
> others can do it to me.
> Or would it be hypocritical for me to do this to others, but not allow others to do
> that to me? Well, its Ok to do it to Jews!
I hope that this clarifies the tricky issues involved in distinguishing between HOME
pages and USER TALK pages. I trust that you will formally acknowledge to the list
that I have never edited your HOME page, at "user:RK", and perhaps apologise for
any confusion you may have inadvertantly caused.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
Please stop Martin (MyRedDice)'s harassment. He won't stop
writing hateful notes to me on my home page.
> Just so we wouldn't miss the point, you repeated
> yourself six times. Don't worry, we all got the message.
> We're just upset you didn't bugger off like you promised
> to. Go away already
American readers should know that "bugger off" means "fuck
off". (It literally means "go fuck an animal, or "go have
anal sex", depending on the context.)
New users should be aware that Martin has also harassed me
in the past by bullying me with his support of anti-Semitic
Christian Identity posts by others; Even Danny admitted
that these Christian Identity (if not Nazi posts) posts
were anti-Semitic; he was the author of the "anonymous"
letter to the Wiki-En list. (Funny, back then few people
supported Danny. People disagreed with the proof offered
simply because of personal hatred of me. I wonder what
people think of Danny now that they now it was him whose
message I forwarded? Will they now admit that blatant
anti-Semitism is wrong? Or will they hate Danny?)
I have not been in a debate with Martin; I have not been
makign remarks on his page; I have not been discussing
anythign with him at all. There is no reason for his
continuted remarks. Yet anytime I make an edit that has to
do with Jews and Israel, Martin goes haywire and begins a
hateful harassment campaign against me. I don't know why
he keeps doing this, but his behaviour is a violation of
Wikipedia etiquette. Please do something to stop his
harassment.
Robert
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
I would like to remind all of us that discussions on this mailing list
are more useful when we avoid personal remarks. Let's stick to the
issues, which are difficult enough.
Here are examples of personal remarks:
* Sheldon, stop being an ass; yer pissing me off
* you sick Nazi bastards
* You lied
* you're just a lowlife that deserves zero respect
* community of violent Jew haters
I'll let you all decide who said which of these gems, but I think we'll
all agree that they're not the sparkling jewels of wit we may have
thought when we wrote them. (I wish I could take back my own, er,
contribution to this parade of shame.)
Ed Poor
Wikien-l admin
If people continue to make personal remarks, I am going to resign as
Wikien-l administrator. I am tired of all the bickering and pointless
arguments.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
here is the issue. Watch carefully what the issue, and
watch the typical response.
Issue: I am just trying to restore the large amounts of
material that keep disappearing. We Wikipedians can't edit
it or improve it unless it is there to be edited. The
problem is that there is no discussion, no editing, no
alternatives given. People are not offering sources or
facts; they are just using their personal opinions, and
anger at Israel, to remove verified and important
historical facts.
I also have repeatedly stated that Danny is a very smart
man, and that he has been a great contributor in the past,
and can be again. Check out the Talk pages and Talk
archives for articles that both Danny and I have worked
together on. There are dozens of such explicit and positive
statements from me in the past few months. (Danny has not
reciprocated, and seems to get angrier each time I say
something positive about him.) In recent days I had to
call Danny on his vandalism, but he seems calmer now, and
has stated that he is willing to work on editing. I am
certainly willing to take him at his word.
This issue needs to be resolved by people sticking to
facts, and not be censorship to push a pro-Arab agenda.
Yet few people are responding to the above argument.
Instead, this list is filled with ad homenin remarks, like
the below one from Stan:
"Not only have you yourself made the ugliest and most
hateful personal attacks that I've yet seen on Wikipedia,
you then have the unmitigated gall to pretend that you
haven't done anything. It doesn't say much for Wikipedia
governance that you haven't been banned forever for your
unacceptable actions."
This is sort of Sad. Stan continually hurls ugly personal
attacks, while I am only asking that we follow our usual
NPOV editing procedures. This is called projection, and it
is neither helpful nor reasonable.
I can only ask people to _try_ to stick the specific points
that both Jimbo and I have repeatedly raised, the points
that anonymous people have made (they are afraid to use
their real names, due to the way that Wiki-En users gang up
on people.) If you stick to the issues, and stop the
non-stop personal attacks, we can get work done.
If you continue the personal attacks, it only shows who is
causing the real problem.
Robert
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
> Here we go again... I could never follow up on all the
> pro/anti-Semitism wars on Wikipedia, but *everything else
> aside*, I find it very peculiar that all have one single
> thing in common: you on one side and hateful crowds
> of anti-Zionists and anti-Semits and soon-to-be-Nazis
> on the other.
First off, you are confused about word the word
"anti-Zionist" means. Please read the new, improved article
on this topic which Danny, myself, and Adam Carr all worked
on. Danny is anti-Zionist...but that doesn't make him an
anti-Semite out for blood. Members of my own family are
non-Zionist and anti-Zionist, and they don't hate the Jews.
(That being said, most anti-Zionists today also have
anti-Semitic views. The problem is that people are using
the same word ("anti-Zionism") to refer to many different
things. Last year, no one saw this problem. After I made
this point in new ways, a number of times, others here
finally figured that out. Hence the new improved article.
> Doesn't this strike you as too much of a coincidence as
> well?
Why would it be coincidence that anti-Semite would not like
a Jew? It would be odd if they loved Jews!
> Maybe they're anti-RK, not anti-Semitic, ever thought of
> that? Seriously. Did it ever cross your mind?
No, and I think the problem is that you have no idea what I
was talking about. I was talking about the many explicitly
anti-Semitic posts made by a number of Wikipedia users,
which were well-documented.
What caused trhew problem was that Martin and a few others
here began to defend this explicitly anti-Semitic Nazi
material as correct. (They even denied that it was
anti-Semitic.)
When it was proven (beyond any shadow of a doubt) that
large amounts of anti-Semitic were being pushed on
Wikipedia, the response on this list was to defend the Nazi
material and make personal attacks on me. (People imagined
that it was I who wrote the analysis. Actually, it was
written by someone else. I can forward you copy of the
posting.)
So, no, it didn't cross my mind that people who accept Nazi
propaganda are not anti-Semitic. The term "anti-Semitic" is
the only one possible for people who defend NAzi (or
Christian Identity) anti-Jewish propaganda. (And again, you
must remember that I talking about very specific edits,
which I can show you. This is not a vague allegation.)
What made me sad was that other Jewish people on Wikipedia
agreed with me, and wrote me letters off-line, but they
refused to say so on line. They stated that their were
afraid that Wiki-En users would gang up on them as well.
(They were probably correct.)
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
LOL :-)
Ed Poor wrote:
>Hey, Sheldon Rampton, you outrageous liar, nyaah nyaah boo boo!
Oh yeah? Well, your mother wears army boots! Let's meet in the
playground after school and settle this once and for all!
--Sheldon Rampton
Hi
Well, well, it's been a while. First, I want to thank everyone for the kind
words that have been said to me and about me, both publically and privately. I
sincerely appreciate it.
I also want to thank Jimbo, for bending over backwards to accommodate me
while keeping within the Wiki guidelines. If I have been stubborn or said anything
that offended him, I apologize here, publically. I admit that I was skeptical
at first, but I believe that his efforts in bringing about arbitration and
dialogue will lead to a greater spirit of camaraderie among everyone who
participates in Wikipedia. I also believe that this spirit of camaraderie and
partnership is the best way to pursue and promote knowledge, which is certainly our
goal.
Given all that, I would like to apologize to everyone if my (rash) departure
created a stir. I have reconsidered my position and decided to accept Jimbo's
offer of bringing this dispute before the arbitration committee, no strings
attached. I understand that the issues to be discussed will include my behavior
regarding the text in question, but I hope they will also cover the issue of
bullying on a much wider level.
I would also like to ask that, if possible, someone who knows how restore my
personal pages. Whatever happens, I am proud of Wikipedia and would like to
have some reminder somewhere that I played some little part in building it.
Thanks,
Danny Wool