On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:57:21 -0400, you wrote: Point of information: he acknowledges that he previously edited as Halliburton Shill, but that he no longer does - as I understand it because the username was deemed inappropriate. That is different. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Uh, actually, you did get blocked for 3RR violations using your many socks on [[Abortion]]. -Swatjester On 4/30/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com> wrote: -- Dan Rosenthal IWVO National Legislative Director

Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:This, too, accords with my reading of the situation. It was this tendentious editing, not sock confusions resulting from the username issues, which resulted in the block. Guy (JzG) This is getting away from my question of how to resolve checkuser errors. Nonetheless, here's a response. Tendentious by definition is POV pushing. POV pushing on Wikipedia is pushing an opinion that is inconsistent with what verifiable sources provide. However, my edits were all based on the overwhelming majority of sources (i.e., reputable and reliable). The list the main contributors to the article (of which I remain one despite my now nearly 3 week block) compiled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/Archive_18#Medical.2C_Reliable.2… Compare those with an example of my edit to the current, unsourced version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=46469735&ol… I was also the first to put up an RFC regarding the abortion article's introductory paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%… As a result, I'm finding it difficult to see how my edits qualify as tendentious. --------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:11:08 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: Really? I have seen edit wars over minor nuances of phrasing that do not represent one point of view or another, just stylistic So, when you use tendentious, you mean edit warring? How do you define tendentious?~~~~ --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase

Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: Evidently, for some any view other than theirs represents an irrelevant minority. :-) Ec I don't have any problem with the example JzG provides. I was hoping when I wrote the POV line that there was already enough context. I should have provided more. So, for future consideration on the issue of what is and is not tendentious, my revised version: POV pushing on Wikipedia is pushing an opinion that is inconsistent with what the majority of verifiable sources provide or disproportionate with how other verifiable minority views are presented. That seems to summarize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POV_pushing well too. The article goes a bit further and states that it applies if "only one point of view" is shown. That article is not policy or guideline, however (which isn't a statement as to whether or not it should be).~~~~Pro-Lick --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.