[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Vogel

[Mr Paul Vogel]

Here is some background information regarding this
allegation of lying and hypocritical censorship of me
by a cabal and ilk or mob of pov bigots:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Vogel
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

< Wikipedia:Requests for comment 

IP numbers used: 

24.45.99.191 (optonline.net ¡ª broadband provider) 
65.125.10.66 (tcius.com ¡ª marketing company) 
66.2.156.* (10, 27, 36, 38, 48, 69, 100, 123)
(algx.net NY dialups) 
216.99.245.* (139, 153, 154, 170, 171, 184, 188)
(algx.net NY dialups) 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Paul's fondness for reversion wars: check
Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls for advice on dealing with
anon users who grossly violate the 3 reversions in 24
hours policy, with abusive talk - David Gerard 08:06,
Apr 6, 2004 (UTC) 

More psychological projection on David Gerard's part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cosmotheism&limit=50&offset=50&action=history
And typical lying hypocrisy!-PV 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, Infrogmation, have been having a conflict/annoyance
with an unlogged in user going by the name "Paul
Vogel", User_talk:24.45.99.191 (contributions ),
apparently the same person as User talk:65.125.10.66
(contributions ) or at least sharing an agenda. The
Turner Diaries article has repeatedly been edited to
try to look like something other than the neo-Nazi
fantasy of global genocide which it is; problems with
other "white power" related articles. May be related
to earlier disputes over Cosmotheism. -- Infrogmation
05:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

There are always at least two sides to any dispute,
and I always do try to always maintain a Wiki NPOV in
any such articles of interest to me. I have never
denied that the "Turner Diaries" wasn't just a
"Neo-Nazi fantasy of non-white genocide", whatsoever,
which it certainly is, but, only over some few
particulars that did not reflect any Wiki NPOV. 



Paul Vogel a.k.a Needle, as he sometimes calls
himself, is a persistent and malicious pest who is
here only to promote his odious neo-Nazi ideology
while ignoring all the basic standards of Wikipedia,
insisting that he and he alone has the only objective
view of his pet topics, and attacking anyone who
disagrees with him as a "Jewish Marxist PC bigot" or
worse (see talk:Cosmotheism, wherein he implies that
anyone who disagrees with him is suffering from mental
illness). Naturyl, who apparently knows Vogel quite
well, made several very accurate predictions about him
(on talk:Pantheism, if you can sort out the incoherent
mess Mr. Needle made of the page), and all of them
have come to pass, except the one about Needle being
permanently banned from Wikipedia, as he has been from
every other website in which he has participated.
Since months of discussion have not succeeded in
teaching him the basic norms of Wikipedia -- NPOV,
Wikiquette, or even basic layout and formatting -- he
should be blocked on sight whenever he pokes his head
out from the rock under which he lives. --No-One Jones
12:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

Paul Vogel's latest manifestation is as 65.125.10.66 -
David Gerard 16:58, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC) 
Stop mis-redirecting the NPOV article, below: 


"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from
a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race
is superior to other races in some or all
characteristics, but this is not his essential belief.
The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and
independence for his people. He wishes them to have
their own society, to be led by their own kind, to
have a government which looks out for their interests
alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a
multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no
desire to rule over other races -- since such rule
necessitates the multiracial society the separatist
wants to avoid at all costs." 

See also separatism 





Again, this is only your own POV and false "opinion",
Mirv, and from one of my oldest enemies on the
internet, "Naturyl", so that false "opinion" of yours
is hardly very "objective" and "non-slanderous" or nor
is it "neutral" and it is only a deliberate "personal
attack" upon both me and my beliefs, is it not? 

I find it amusing to say the least, that like
"Naturyl", that you are so quick to ban and to censor
anyone that does not share your own POV? 

What else isn't new? 


As evidence, glance over the histories of the articles
he's vandalised: 
Cosmotheism and associated talk page 
Pantheism and associated talk page 
Monism 
William Pierce 
White supremacy 
National Alliance 
Holocaust 
Holocaust denial 
(and some others, all related to the above). 
--No-One Jones 12:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

I have not "vandalized" any of those pages by my
insisting upon only a Wiki NPOV, whatsoever. You
always falsely calling my edits, "vandalism", is just
another subjective POV "personal attack" and with no
real rational basis, whatsoever. Mirv is a just POV
bigoted censor and lying hypocrite, just like
"Naturyl", and no more and no less. 


While the claims above are largely accurate (if
biased, and seasoned with a good deal of flaming) I
have found Paul to be able to make a decent edit on
occasion, and must say he has gotten much better over
time. I'm a bit shocked to see Mirv taking such a
strong stand against him now, after all he put up with
in the past forcing Paul to accept NPOV on "his"
article cosmotheism. I havn't found him to actually
vandalize anything in a very long time. He clearly
spends more time studying some of these subjects than
anyone else around here, and supplies a good deal of
POV info and links, along w a much needed alternate
perspective. I personally have found the sorts of P.C.
biases Paul rails against on the wiki from time to
time (altho not so much from the people he acccuses of
it, mirv seems pretty darn fair and balanced,
considering what he's put up with) and I frankly would
like to reform Paul. I think he's on his way, I've
seen consistant progress from him. And as far as I
know, there is no specific policy on the wiki
outlawing anyone based apon their politics (if such a
policy were written, it had better not outlaw
communists, or we'll lose 3/4's of the staff ;) Sam
Spade 12:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) 
Mirv, is about as "fair and balanced" in his leftist
dogmatism and bigoted censorship as Bill O-reilly is
with his own "neo-conservative" Fox news program! LOL!
:D 

Sam Spade is quite right about the staff being 3/4
leftist PC Marxists! 

That is why the Wiki NPOV is in such danger of being
pushed aside and only Marxist-PC Propaganda is being
allowed within many articles in the Wiki encyclopedia.



I do not propose outlawing him based on his vile
politics. If a neo-Nazi were to edit Wikipedia, but
was willing follow NPOV, was polite, understood Wiki
markup, and could write English that would pass an
eighth-grade composition class, I would be willing to
work with him. Since Vogel does not fit this
description (except for the "neo-Nazi" part, of
course), I made my complaint above. 
On the contrary, you actually are proposing to outlaw
and ban and censor me, because you consider my
politics, "vile", and no more and no less. Get real!!!



"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from
a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race
is superior to other races in some or all
characteristics, but this is not his essential belief.
The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and
independence for his people. He wishes them to have
their own society, to be led by their own kind, to
have a government which looks out for their interests
alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a
multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no
desire to rule over other races -- since such rule
necessitates the multiracial society the separatist
wants to avoid at all costs." 

See also separatism 





If you have not seen him vandalise anything in a long
time, either you have not been watching or you have a
different definition of "a very long time": he
vandalised my user and talk pages not two weeks ago
([1] [2] [3]), he vandalised white supremacy a few
days after that ([4]), and then he vandalised
Holocaust denial ([5]). 

Mirv, has a very unique "definition" of "vandalism",
which only just means anything that Mirv just doesn't
like to see within any articles or on any talkpages.
Your bigoted reverts had caused some frustration on my
part, and I may have been only trying to get your
attention, when I blanked out some of your pages. I do
sometimes get sick of your bigoted POV reverts and
edits, Mirv, and I do apologize for any actual
"vandalism" that I may have actually done in the past.



I have tried patient discussion, and it did not work;
Vogel responded by calling me (and numerous others) a
"Jewish Marxist PC bigot" and a tool of Zionist (read:
Jewish) world-domination conspiracy; (also accusing me
of suffering from mental illness -- see above). Since
he has not shown the slightest willingness or desire
to abide by Wikipedia norms, and this is a pattern of
behavior which he has demonstrated in the past
(everything Naturyl said is true, and then some), I
think he should be banned. 
You have not done any such thing as try "patient
discussion", whatsoever, only reverting and editing
for your own POV and without any true "explaination",
whatsoever. If the shoe fits, you do wear it, Mirv.
You only want to ban me, just because you personally
just don't like me or my beliefs, and that is the
truth, and no more and no less. 





Assumptions of good faith should not last when they
have been violated from the start. (And as a
nitpicking side note, I wrote nearly all of the
cosmotheism article; Mr. Vogel, the self-proclaimed
expert, could only vandalize it with bad English,
unformatted source text dumps, deletion of
inconvenient facts, and rants about "Marxist
politically-correct propaganda". His contribution,
despite his proclamation of expertise, is negligible.)
--No-One Jones 13:23, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

That is just complete nonsense, and Mirv knows it. It
figures that he would take the credit for work that he
hadn't actually done! 


I will quickly point out that yes, you did entirely
and satisfactorilly rewrite cosmotheism, and against
spectacular obstacles. I found it to be a rairly
heroic display of NPOV (as well as general article
quality) myself. On the other hand, I think you
deminish Pauls role in providing an alternate view
overmuch. On the Gripping hand, I was not aware of
that other vandalism (are you sure its vandalism? I
suppose I may have to look into it). I think you may
want to take this to wikipedia:conflict resolution,
since this page is designed for laughs (and incessent
flamming) rather than being a legitimate part of
wiki-process, IMO ;) Sam Spade 19:39, 20 Feb 2004
(UTC) 
It is obvious that Mirv has no intention of having any
"good will" towards resolving any issues between us,
and only want to ban and censor me. Mirv really
doesn't want any alternative or NPOV's within Wiki,
and his past POV behavior and editing shows plenty of
evidence of that fact. 


Has also been getting into revert war at Homophobic
hate speech. Could some other responsible folks around
here take a look at this user? Thanks, -- Infrogmation
18:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) 
A Wiki NPOV is justified with any such Marxist-PC POV
topic. 


I think this user's behaviour with frequent POV
reverts has reached the stage where a block is
warrented. As I have been one of the people involved
in editing and counter-editing articles he's been
active on, I recuse myself as an admin from doing the
block myself. -- Infrogmation 21:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Those that advocate such bans and blocks are usually
Marxist-PC dogmatic bigots that do not wish to see any
POV whether NPOV or not, other than their own. If one
was to see what each of these editors has done in the
past, that fact would become clear to any objective
person. 


I think this user needs to be blocked. Several have
been trying to keep his rants to the talk pages but
have been unsuccessful. In addition, his edits on
other pages only amount to anti-jewish vandalism. -
Texture 21:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

That last is not remotely accurate. Sam Spade 21:04,
20 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

In reference to your objection to my claim on
anti-jewish vandalism, please refer to his edit
history of dozens (a day) attempted changes to several
articles to add non-article content (discussions,
rants, opinions) without agreeing to discussion and
concensus in the Talk pages. (Many reversions request
discussion on the talk page and are ignored.) I term
vandalism as repeated attempts to deface an article. I
suggest you read the attempted changes to get a feel
for my interpretation of anti-jewish. - Texture 21:44,
25 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

Anti-Jewish vandalism? That is a completely silly and
false accusation. 
Does my always striving to maintain a Wiki NPOV within
articles "anti-jewish vandalism"? People like Mirv,
and his ilk, or cabal, do seem to think so, and some
"pigs opinions are just more equal than others", ie.
Animal Farm. 


Sam, are you replying to me or Vogel? All my
paragraphs have my signature. The one before yours is
not mine. - Texture 21:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) 
IF the shoe fits? 

This user appears to be back as 24.45.99.191. He has
stated [6] that "WE can revert until the cows come
home as long as a NPOV is not being maintained
regarding this strictly Marxist-PC POV propaganda
article." He has no intention of working with others.
What are the rules regarding a vandalising anon IP? -
David Gerard 15:26, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC) 

On the contary, I AM ALWAYS willing to work with
anyone that is trying to maintain a Wiki NPOV within
all articles. It is you that is being the F-head that
is "unwilling" to talk or to work with any "others"
that you just happen disagree with, like me. 

Also now seen as 216.99.245.171 - David Gerard 16:10,
Feb 25, 2004 (UTC) 

There will be many others, as is necessary, to
maintain the Wiki NPOV. 

Now he's actually left me a message on my talk page to
let me know there's an article -- separatism -- for me
to revert again. Can some new people deal with this
guy? 

 -- BCorr ¡è §¢§â§Ñ§Û§Ö§ß  02:05, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why are or would you revert a NPOV article for one
that isn't? Oh yeah, because you are a F-head that
actually doesn't believe in the Wiki NPOV?
Obviously!!! 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back as User:216.99.245.184 -- BCorr ¡è §¢§â§Ñ§Û§Ö§ß
21:12, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC) 
back as 66.2.156.38 Perl 21:16, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) 


Table of contents [showhide]  
1 wikiquette

2 Allegations

3 Block

3.1 Block YOURSELF and YOUR OWN CENSOROUS POV ILK!
 



wikiquette
You all need to understand that wikiquette is not one
way. Everytime you mistreat Paul, you justify an error
on his part. It is only when you are kind, polite and
welcoming, and remain unsuccessful in cultivating the
"problem user" that you have any legitimate complaint,
IMO. I have always gone out of my way to be polite to
Paul, and have found a great deal of success, and a
minimizing of negative edits. I suggest you take the
plank from your own eye, before removing the mote from
Pauls. Sam Spade 21:39, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

With respect, Jack, I have tried to be reasonable and
polite and welcoming, and did not find it successful.
I appreciate the fact that you've been able to, and
hopefully you can continue to resson with him. It
seems that my role in this will simply remain that of
trying to enforce NPOV through my edits and endure his
calling me a PC Marxist. Thanks, BCorr ¡è §¢§â§Ñ§Û§Ö§ß
21:43, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC) 

So long as you strive to be as inclusive and
non-partisan as possible, rather than defining "NPOV"
as your POV (as I'm sure Paul assumes) then I think
thats great. I don't want you to take me the wrong
way, I have seen evidence of vandalism from Paul
(blanking of pages) and complained about it myself. On
the other hand, I have seen Paul make a good edit, and
then it be reverted with the edit note stating it was
"vandalism" (you were not involved in the incident I
am refering to, BTW). This sort of thing gives him no
small amount of justification. I must say, IMO there
is no shortage of "PC marxists" here or in so many
other places of learning, and from the POV I have seen
in some places (particularly areas of politics or
religion) on the wiki I can understand why Paul would
choose these particular accusations. Why he levels
them at you, or other specific individuals I can't
say, not knowing enough of the particulars. Sam Spade
23:48, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) 
Sam, 

Here are some of the "particulars", some of which
Bcorr "erased" to cover his own tracks and lying
hypocrisy!: 

? Moroccan Cuisine 

Wouldn't it be easier to make the real edit in the
first place? -- BCorr ¡è §¢§â§Ñ§Û§Ö§ß 02:32, 25 Feb
2004 (UTC) 


What I wrote was accurate. What I replaced was
somewhere on the scale from culturally niave to
racist. I was not insulting. I did not say "filthy,
lecherous Westerners". You reverted. You could have
done the edit you suggest I do. You have corrected me
but you have not corrected Wikipedia. If you are
concerned about Wikipedia then you should remove the
pre-exisiting inaccurate insult. Otherwise please
explain the motivation for your action. 

I don't monitor others' Talk pages. Reply to mine,
please. 

Paul Beardsell 02:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

My point is simple. If there's a problem, correct it.
Adding facetious text in in attempt to get someone
else to fix the problem you found is not generally
productive. Thanks, BCorr ¡è §¢§â§Ñ§Û§Ö§ß 02:58, 25
Feb 2004 (UTC) 

To make my point more plain: Imagine if on the
American Cuisine page there was the equally misleading
comment Kentucky Fried Chicken is usually eaten at
brothels. Paul Beardsell 03:00, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

and that was replaced by KFC is sometimes fed to North
African tourists at so-called restaurants. 

Then I would change it without adding something about
overfed Americans eating ersatz Southern cuisine at a
multinational fast-food chain... -- BCorr ¡è
§¢§â§Ñ§Û§Ö§ß 03:03, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

In reply: You also had the opportunity but did not
take it. The reversion was unnecessary policing. With
the same effort you could have made the constructive
change you want me to make. You have blindly crossed
the street to correct a jay walker. Paul Beardsell
03:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

Whatever -- BCorr ¡è §¢§â§Ñ§Û§Ö§ß 03:17, 25 Feb 2004
(UTC) 

To make your point about how I could act more
constructively you reverted a Wikipedia article to an
inaccurate version. That's "whatever". Paul Beardsell
03:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

For the record, my change was not of the above
character, but was unemotive and factual. What BCorr
is objecting to (I think) is the phrasing of the
comment I made about my change. The actual edit is
itself difficult to object to as it is both
unemotionally phrased and accurate. It is not
"facetious", as alleged. View the moroccan cuisine
version log and diffs. Paul Beardsell 03:44, 25 Feb
2004 (UTC) 
I have copied the above text to the Moroccan Cuisine
talk page. Paul Beardsell 03:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) 


? Paul Vogel rants again 

"A supremacist [snip] at all costs." STOP
MIS-REDIRECTING THIS NPOV ARTICLE TO A MARXIST-PC POV.
THANKS! User:24.45.99.191 

We will continue to revert your edits to remove your
POV about what you claim are differences between white
supremacists and white separatists. -- BCorr ¡è
§¢§â§Ñ§Û§Ö§ß 18:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) It is NOT my
claim, it is the actual NPOV distinction between them,
and whether your own POV actually thinks there is one
or NOT! 





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A supremacist [snip] at all costs." 

STOP MIS-REDIRECTING THIS NPOV ARTICLE TO A MARXIST-PC
POV. THANKS! User:24.45.99.191 


We will continue to revert your edits to remove your
POV about what you claim are differences between white
supremacists and white separatists. -- BCorr ¡è
§¢§â§Ñ§Û§Ö§ß 18:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) 
It is NOT my claim, it is the actual NPOV distinction
between them, and whether your own POV actually thinks
there is one or NOT! 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A supremacist [snip] to avoid at all costs." 

(text added by Paul Vogel, abridged by BCorr) 

? Paul Vogel reprise 

Thanks! Glad to see a sysop hard at work! Perl 02:05,
26 Feb 2004 (UTC) 


We aim to please! I'll just redelete it and remove it
from Vfd. -- BCorr ¡è §¢§â§Ñ§Û§Ö§ß 02:07, 26 Feb 2004
(UTC) 

"Hard at work" only preventing any truely NPOV
articles from actually ever seeing the light of day!
What a cabal of Marxist-pc POV bigots and censors! 

Maybe I'm just a Wikisupremacist...or is that
Wikiseparatist? -- BCorr ¡è §¢§â§Ñ§Û§Ö§ß 02:42, 26 Feb
2004 (UTC) 

No, neither, just a wiki F-head! That's only being
objective and accurate and with a typically here,
"Wiki NPOV!" LOL! :D (added by Paul Vogel) 

That there are two words might suggest there is a
difference in the meaning between them. What does the
DICTIONARY say. Ah! [That I can see a difference does
not make me a supporter of either concept.] Paul
Beardsell 02:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

[and it is that I comment on this page that makes me
point that out.] Paul Beardsell 03:17, 26 Feb 2004
(UTC) 

He can format it but he can't reply to it. Paul
Beardsell 04:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

Here is my reply, oh snippy and demanding one: White
separatist-- BCorr ¡è §¢§â§Ñ§Û§Ö§ß 04:26, 26 Feb 2004
(UTC) 

Well, I'm happier now. Nice article. (pat). Snippy is
a bit rich from you. (slap). Paul Beardsell 04:37, 26
Feb 2004 (UTC) 
It seems to me that much of the heat in this
discussion could have been defused by an admission
early on that a difference between separatism and
supremacism is acknowledged but that a NPOV form of
words was being sought. Now that difference is
acknowledged. That is really all the non-supremacist
separatists (whether you believe their position is
tenable or not) wanted. It seems to me that some of
the unseemly language, however regrettable, was
provoked. Paul Beardsell 04:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for honestly taking my case, Sam aka Jack! 

Best regards, 

Paul Vogel 

PS--Treat someone with such "dis-respect", as BCorr
has done with me and with others, ie. "whatever", when
they had been objectively "proven wrong" or were shown
to be "unreasonable", and then you will be only
treated the same in turn. 

Note: Much of the above is from my current talk page.
Each place above where it says [snip] -- which I
assume is what Paul is referring to that I erased --
is the same Strom quote that Paul kept inserting in
articles. He put it on my talk page and I deleted the
majority of the quote while leaving thebeginning and
the end. I don't want to have any more copies of that
Strom quote floating around than necessary. -- BCorr
¡è §¢§â§Ñ§Û§Ö§ß 21:11, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC) 



I don't want to have any more copies of that Strom
quote floating around than necessary. -- BCorr ¡è
§¢§â§Ñ§Û§Ö§ß 21:11, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC) 

What is wrong with that Strom quote, BCorr, and why
wouldn't you want it more well known? Maybe because it
is true and undermines your own false POV beliefs? 


Paul Vogel is right. BCorr and many of the other
editors at Wikipedia have been reverting his edits,
based only on their own leftist POV, verses Paul's
factual and objective and NPOV edits. You should all
be ashamed of yourselves for your bigoted censorship
of Paul Vogel! - 216.99.245.153 


Seeing as 216.99.245.153 just tried refilling
Cosmotheism with Vogelisms, may I suggest a quick
reread of sock puppet. - David Gerard 12:53, Mar 6,
2004 (UTC) 
Since David Gerard here is such a lying hypocrite, I
do suggest that all others here do a quick re-read of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot and political
correctness. 


That kind of direct attack does not serve your
arguments here. - Texture 19:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) 
I agree! David Gerards' "direct attack" of sock puppet
only provoked a similar response in kind! 


As I said on Talk:National Alliance: 

Paul, if your edits are consistently reverted by many
others, two possible explanations spring to mind: 

There is a conspiracy against you to suppress the
truth; or 
You are failing to write stuff in the articles that
someone disagreeing with you couldn't fairly dispute. 

The NPOV article talks at length about this second
one, as does Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. 

Please do consider that you might actually get more of
your points across if you played better with others
and didn't act in a manner closely resembling a crank
- spamming a couple of paragraphs across multiple
articles and talk pages, spamming copies of an entire
article to its talk page, changing quotes, obvious
sock puppetry, etc. 

By the way, why don't you ever sign your posts to talk
pages? - David Gerard 19:55, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC) 
We all know, David, by your own "actions" and
"censorship" and "biased bannings" and "lying
hypocrisy" that you are indeed posting with such a POV
verses a Wiki NPOV in mind during your posts and
editing!! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cosmotheism&oldid=2682575


What else isn't new? 


Paul, if your edits are consistently reverted by many
others, two possible explanations spring to mind: 
There is a conspiracy against you to suppress the
truth; or 
You are failing to write stuff in the articles that
someone disagreeing with you couldn't fairly dispute. 
Or, #3, all of the above, as there has not been any
"fair" disagreements about what I have written, as
what I had written was only based upon the actual NPOV
facts! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cosmotheism&oldid=2682575



The NPOV article talks at length about this second
one, as does Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. 
I AM well aware of what NPOV SAYS and MEANS, and that
is WHY I am so DISGUSTED with some of the biased POV
EDITORS here, that do SAY one thing BUT only DO quite
ANOTHER! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cosmotheism&oldid=2682575


Their ACTIONS DO SPEAK much LOUDER than their WORDS! 


Please do consider that you might actually get more of
your points across if you played better with others
and didn't act in a manner closely resembling a crank
- spamming a couple of paragraphs across multiple
articles and talk pages, spamming copies of an entire
article to its talk page, changing quotes, etc - David
Gerard 16:07, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC) 
Do consider that not being such a "lying hypocrite"
would actually give you some "personal integrity", and
that would likely create the desire in people with
actual personal integrity to "play better" with you,
David Gerard. :D 


Allegations
The allegations placed on the request for comments
page are accurate, as is Pauls claim of being
censored. This is a perfect example of the "official"
wiki POV. Being a communist or an anarchist is aok,
but a nazi or a racist is unnaceptable. Thats BS.
Having a diversity of editors is one of the best ways
to ensure NPOV. The important thing is that we utilize
citations, verifiability, and proper wording "some
people believe X, for ABC reasons, see [reference] for
more information" etc... Placing only one POV in an
article, and passing it off and NPOV truth is again
BS. In conclusion, I have seen Paul make numerous
quality edits, as well as numerous crappy edits and
even a few acts of vandalism. But the truth is, he is
getting steadilly better over time, you all just
didn't know him way back when he started ;) I see a
potential editor in Paul, and definitely a source of
non-"offical wiki POV" to counterbalance things with.
Additionally, he is likely the most knowledgable (from
what I have seen) out of all of us when it comes to
the pages he chooses to edit. He isn't messing about
on communism, I can tell you that ;) Lets try hard to
lead by example, so that anybody, regardless of how
"wrong" their POV is, can still edit here. Sam Spade
21:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) 

Examples of when I am "right"! :D 

Here: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-object_problem 

And here: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.45.99.191



Block
Given Vogel's continued trolling I think it's
necessary to block his IP addresses permanently AndyL
02:58, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) 

Block YOURSELF and YOUR OWN CENSOROUS POV ILK!
Given AndyL, and his "ilk" of "lying hypocrites"
continued calls for banning and censoring anyone that
does not have ONLY his own "ilk's", pov, maybe he and
his own "cabal" of censorous and "lying hypocrites"
should be banned and blocked permanently from the
Wikipedia Project?-PV 


I think calls for bans or blocks can be wrong. But I
think comments like [7] yours at Talk:Holocaust that
call down blood curses on people who you see as
enemies turn this project into a nasty and cruel
place. 
On the contrary, you are just taking the comment out
of context-PV: 

"As is usual, such Wiki "no personal attacks" and such
"no more than 

  + 3 revert" policies only apply to "others" and
never to yourself and 
  + your own "ilk". The usual "Double-Standard". 

  + Obviously, the only ones being "blood cursed" are
only  
  + those that actually are "lying hypocrites" and
that are  
  + always censoring the TRUTH. 
  +  
  + "HOW DARE you personally insult me with falsely
and personally insulting me and calling me any
"anti-Semitic" or "troll nature" because you do not
understand just how relevant and important that
section within the article actually is?  
  + You are such an narrow-minded bigot that you do
not see what the future holds for all Jews,
everywhere, with your own selfish and biased bigotry
and ignorant pov editing of the truth.  
  + A blood curse be upon all of your ilk that always
censors the Truth for any such selfish and foolish and
bigoted narrow-mindedness!"  
  +  
  + I stand by EVERY WORD I SAID, and if the shoe
fits, you do wear it well! :D"-PV 


I understand you are upset, Paul, but I think your
comments are more out of line than those of the
editors who are reacting to you. 


That only proves your own bias, as my comments were
the result of their censorship and lying hypocrisy and
slanderous false personal insults.-PV 


You have successfully inflamed an opposition (your
actions suggest to me that you wanted an opposition)
and it seems odd to me that you would now blame them
for their emotional reactions which you seem (in my
estimation) to actively provoke. 

Since when should ANY factual alternative povs
"actively provoke emotional reactions"? You are
blaming me for their "negative emotional reactions" to
the TRUTH?-PV 


Are you unaware of your effect on others? I grant that
some people have said rude things to you, but have you
not seen your comments that incited them? 

Again, since when should ANY factual alternative povs
"actively provoke emotional reactions"? You are
falsely blaming me only for their own "negative
emotional reactions" to the TRUTH?-PV 


  I think this calls for serious introspection from
everyone involved, you included. Jwrosenzweig 15:54,
21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree. The factual and objective and NPOV TRUTH is
SACRED and it should ALWAYS come FIRST before ANYONE's
own selfish and pov "negative emotional reactions", or
before ANY "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" and most especially
within any TRUTHFUL and factually accurate and
objective and NPOV ENCYCLOPEDIA, does it not?-PV 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{{The below is from Paul Vogel - Jwrosenzweig}} 
PS-Evidence? Right here: 

"User talk:AndyL From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia. 

Andy, why do you keep using different login names? You
know you can always sign into different computers with
the same name, if you know the password? john 03:07, 1
Apr 2004 (UTC) 

Okay, got it. Nice work on James Gregor by the way, if
only for the way it'll almost certainly shut up the
people who've been citing him. On the other hand,
strikes me as a bit POV. The entire article, as it
stands now, is about the guy's earlier career. The
fact that he has since become a relatively
well-respected (at least in certain circles) political
scientist at Berkeley, worthy of serious reviews in
the Journal of Modern History, and so forth, and that
most of the stuff mentioned came from very early in
his career, ought to be mentioned - I don't think that
makes it any less of a condemnation of the guy,
assuming it's true. john 03:32, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) 

Oh, I don't think we should excuse the guy. The early
racist stuff should be talked about. I think it should
then say something about how in recent years, he's
kept pretty quiet about that part of his past, discuss
his more recent work (which, since the 70s at least,
seems to have been devoted to promoting his
idiosyncratic views on fascism - which he seems to
rather like, in general), and call it a day. john
03:42, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) 

I was going to say that we should mention it much as
we ought to discuss William Rehnquist's
pro-segregationist past (including writing a brief for
Justice Jackson expressing his opposition to school
desegregation while the Brown case was being
discussed), but then go on and talk about the rest of
his career. Unfortunately, as you can see, the
Rehnquist page is pretty astonishingly terrible for
such an important person. john 03:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


By the way, my "Stalinism (as an extension of Marxian
socialism)" comment was meant to summarize Arendt's
views on totalitarianism, and specifically the
relationship of Nazism to socialism. She sees Nazism
and Stalinism as similar as a result of convergent
evolution - that is, Stalinism evolved out of
socialism, and Nazism out of 19th century anti-semitic
racism - but not of common origin. That was the point
of the comments, although I must say that Stalinism,
however detestable it was, and however much of a
distortion of Marxist principles, was certainly an
ideology with pretty clear and traceable Marxist
roots. john 04:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) 

Yes, that's fine. Such detail belongs more in a
discussion of Arendt or of totalitarianism, anyway.
john 04:31, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) 

Wow, this guy is unbelievable. I'm astonished that
anyone gave him tenure, or is willing to review his
books in serious journals. john 05:19, 1 Apr 2004
(UTC) 

By the way, when moving pages, you should use the
"move page" feature, rather than cutting and pasting.
Cutting and pasting makes the article history much
harder to get at. If there's already stuff at the
older site, you should ask an admin (I'm one) to
delete the page you're moving to (assuming there's no
significant history there). john 05:35, 1 Apr 2004
(UTC) 

The Gregor thing is pretty hilarious. It's so
wonderful that the libertarian right idolizes this
Janus book because it "proves" that fascism is
leftist, without realizing that Gregor is a fascist.
john 05:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) 

It's April the 2nd in some countries - and 7pm UTC -
so no more april fools. Secretlondon 19:32, 1 Apr 2004
(UTC) 





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that. You've been doing a goog job
salvaging it. Articles of this nature seem to be
proliferating at an uncontrollable pace, though. 172
06:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of contents [showhide] 1 Fascism edits should be
moved 

1 White Separatist 2 Quickpolls 3 preventative 4
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact 5 message 6 Hardial Bains 

 


Fascism edits should be moved I'd like to point out
that socialism and fascism edits should probably be
moved to Socialism and Nazism, since that page was set
up specially for that topic. Please move them there,
Thank you! Kim Bruning 22:25, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) Kim
Bruning 22:25, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) Hi AndyL, good to meet
you. Nice work on the facism and socialism section of
facism. Well-balanced, clear, and to the point. Tannin
22:13, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) 


White Separatist I don't mind a request for protection
one bit. Heck, I'll thank you! Get those silly POV
edits off my RC patrolling. :) Fennec 03:13, 13 Apr
2004 (UTC) 

Well, I think a block on the anon might have served us
all more. But I cannot blame you for your action as
the page was underseige to some extent. I just doubt
this protection will solve the problem as Sam Spade
(who seems to be sympathetic to some of the anon's
views) just moved the dispute to Racialist see
Talk:Racialist for the debate which he lost. thanks.
GrazingshipIV 21:50, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC) 


Quickpolls I'm afraid I can't vote in a quickpoll for
another week or so yet, due to seniority reasons. -
Fennec 03:04, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) 

You need to sign your Quickpoll creations. But I don't
think we need to do that for anons. RickK 03:12, 14
Apr 2004 (UTC) 





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I redirected the Rhodesia to the Zimbabwe entry
because it ought to be a section with its own heading
in an entry on Zimbabwe history rather than a
self-standing entry. I've never seen another
encyclopedia published after 1980 with an entry on
Rhodesia. The Rhodesia entry in every encyclopedia
I've seen, from Britannica to Encarta, merely reads
"see Zimbabwe." So, my redirect stemmed from technical
and organization concerns rather than concerns
pertaining to the content in that particular article.
However, I'll integrate the content before the
redirecting the article next time so that my rationale
isn't misunderstood. 172 03:40, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for
adminship#Nominations for adminship, where you were
nominated for admin. 172 04:13, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please let me know when you're done with Fascism and
Communism. The stuff you've moved to Anti-communism
makes little sense in that context, but I see that
you're still moving things around and making edits, so
I'm not going to get in the way. I'm trying to put an
end to Reaction to McCarthyism, which seems to have
become little more than a dumping ground for POV
texts, by moving the salvageable parts to McCarthyism
and Anti-communism. Diderot 11:29, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) 





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your articles on communsits of China, Korea, Vietnam:
unfortunately I am of little help in these issues.
Mikkalai 17:44, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) 


preventative My Osford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
lists preventative as a (not preferred) alternative of
preventive. I guess you can explain this for a
foreigner like me? ;-) --Ruhrjung 00:41, 20 Apr 2004
(UTC) 


Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Your last few edits there
caused some duplication (of which I've been seeing a
lot lately, for some reason . . . is there a software
glitch somewhere?) so that I can't tell what was added
and what (if anything) was removed. Do you think you
could go back there and take out the duplicate text?
¡ªNo-One Jones 02:17, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) 


message Thanks for taking an interest in white
separatism Sam Spade is trying to advance a racist
agenda for some reason, please keep an eye on the page
to make sure he does not succeed.GrazingshipIV 07:19,
Apr 20, 2004 (UTC) 

That Sam Spade's a tricksy one. I can't tell whether
he's generally good natured and just really
ignorant/stupid, and thus isn't able to tell NPOV from
coddling of weird extremist view points (or perhaps
he's a dostoevskyan idiot, too good for this world,
who knows?), or he's got an agenda. I have a hard time
figuring out exactly what his agenda might be, but the
whole thing is irritating. john 07:36, 20 Apr 2004
(UTC) 





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the heads-up on PV. It looks like it is
temporarily being managed. The problem is, anyone who
uses anonymous IP numbers is hard to block
effectively. A temporary solution is to protect the
page. I am a sysop but I have been involved in the
dispute so I cannot protect the page. I suggest that
if he reappears you ask another sysop to block the
page. I brought up the matter on the list-serve and it
was pretty much ignored. I think we have managed to
control PV by reverting, but if he comes back there is
a need for something more serious and I am not sure if
the mediation process is the appropriate thing.
Slrubenstein anon IP are normally hard to block but he
obviously has dedicated IPs that would be easy to
block indefinitely. The same ones get used repeatedly
making me believe (depending on time of day) that
these are work and home. - T¦Åx¦Óur¦Å 20:16, 20 Apr
2004 (UTC) In response to John he is a racist posing
as an apathetic loser IMO. But for Andy AC stands for
the Arbitration committee there will be ample info
there. GrazingshipIV 04:15, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC) 
Grazingship is right about the AC. You'll want to read
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to consider other
options, since you don't want to appeal to the AC
unless you're sure they'll say yes. Mediation is a
possibility I would suggest you consider. You might
want to talk to an advocate (See Wikipedia:AMA) about
your options -- some of them are mediators or
arbitrators, and they might be able to guide you here.
If I can be of any more help, good luck. Arbitration
is a difficult thing to pursue. Jwrosenzweig 15:13, 21
Apr 2004 (UTC) 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hardial Bains Andy, Hope I am posting this in the
right place... still getting used to this site... The
info you got on Hardial Bains from that website I have
read before. Well some of it may be factual, other
things are denied by my Comrades in CPC(M-L). For one
thing, when I mentioned the Communist Party of
Trinidad and Tobago to some CPC(M-L) people, I was
told that Bains did NOT have anything to do with the
founding of it. This was not something contraversial,
so if their is one error in that source, I am
sceptical about the entire piece. I later confirmed
that Bains did not found the party in Trinidad when I
met someone who is in the party. I also heard it is
not true Bains said that "Women are more Revolutionary
than men". 

We need to keep in mind that Bains is a very
contraversial figure on the Left here in Canada, and
that there is a lot of gossip and half-truths, as well
as straight up lies about him. 

That article is old, and I would prefer to hear the
story of CPC(M-L) on those accusations." 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the exact QUOTE of mine and in proper CONTEXT:


"The article section is "quite appropriate" for the
reasons I have just given, what information,
specifically, was "not suitable" and "why" for the
position in the article? HOW DARE you personally
insult me with falsely and personally insulting me and
calling me any "anti-Semitic" or "troll nature"
because you do not understand just how relevant and
important that section within the article actually is?
You are such an narrow-minded bigot that you do not
see what the future holds for all Jews, everywhere,
with your own selfish and biased bigotry and ignorant
pov editing of the truth. A blood curse be upon all of
your ilk that always censors the Truth for any such
selfish and foolish and bigoted narrow-mindedness!"-PV


PS--Now I DO understand what "Mel Gibson" went through
with his The Passion of the Christ!!! 

"Defense against charges of anti-Semitism When Gibson
was asked if his movie would be offensive to Jews
today, he responded, "It's not meant to. I think it's
meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful
as possible. But when you look at the reasons Christ
came, he was crucified - he died for all mankind and
he suffered for all mankind. So that, really, anyone
who transgresses has to look at their own part or look
at their own culpability." 

In an interview in The New Yorker, Gibson charges that
he trimmed a scene from The Passion of the Christ
involving the Jewish high priest Caiaphas because if
he did not, "they'd be coming after me at my house,
they'd come to kill me." In response, Abraham Foxman,
director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a Jewish
civil rights group, publicly charged Gibson with
anti-Semitism, and New York Times critic Frank Rich
openly accused Gibson of "Jew-baiting". 

In an apparent effort to stem the tide of criticism,
Gibson arranged for screenings of the film; yet these
merely caused more criticism, as his audiences
included prominent Christians and Jews known for their
political and social conservatism. Requests for a
screening by the ADL were declined. American film
reviewer, Michael Medved -- a secular Jewish author,
columnist and film reviewer -- praised the movie's
Biblical accuracy, although a February 16, 2004
Newsweek cover story by Jon Meacham suggests that
there are numerous inaccuracies in the movie.
Similarly, one statement by the ADL read: 


"For filmmakers to do justice to the biblical accounts
of the passion, they must complement their artistic
vision with sound scholarship, which includes
knowledge of how the passion accounts have been used
historically to disparage and attack Jews and Judaism.
Absent such scholarly and theological understanding,
productions such as The Passion could likely falsify
history and fuel the animus of those who hate Jews."
[8] The ADL recently made a web page providing
examples of anti-Semitic responses to the ADL's
criticism of this project. [9] Critics of the ADL
retort that it couldn't possibly be the film that
caused any hateful e-mails to the ADL because the film
isn't in theatres yet; it is, instead, the ADL's
attacks against a film on the life of Jesus that was
the motivation. The Catholic League has responded to
the ADL by accusing the organization of "seeking to
poison relations between Catholics and Jews,"
contending that the "attacks on Mel Gibson have little
to do with some off-the-cuff quips and everything to
do with waging a frontal assault against all those
people - Catholics, Protestants, Jews et al. - who
have seen 'The Passion' and love it." [10] Other
commentators who have seen the film - such as Cal
Thomas and Roger Ebert - have also categorically
denied that the film contains anti-Semitic material.
[11] " 

The same CENSOROUS slanderous "ILK" of LYING
HYPOCRITES and BIGOTS, as back then, are actually the
same ones NOW!-PV 

For example, this false "personal insult" of "troll"
and his bigoted attempt to censor and ban or block me:


Troll 24.45.99.191 who's name is Paul Vogel and is the
same troll I complained about earlier in my quick poll
(using another IP address, 64. something which I
*think* has been blocked) is still at it. Since he's
not a registered user and the consensus is that anon
users needn't be subjected to the same quickpoll
process as registered users could you please review
his activity and see if he merits banning. Thanks
AndyL 18:18, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS-FYI:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=hypocritical




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT IS A TROLL? 


Well, in a nut-shell, a TROLL is someone who
constantly disrupts a posting community for no reason
other than just because they CAN. They will often post
off-topic, and attack members of the posting community
that have done nothing to provoke them. The troll will
then often try to make it look like the posting
community member had attacked THEM. They will
constantly refer to posts made by that member in which
the member had "flamed" them verbally or had
personally attacked them in the posting community.
What they naturally always fail to ALSO HONESTLY say
is that the posts of the victim are in direct RESPONSE
to a flame war originated by the troll himself. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am NOT any TROLL nor VANDAL, NOR any other
SLANDEROUS PERSONAL INSULT that these lying and
hypocritical and psychological projectionist bigoted
and censorous ilk have so falsely accused me of
being!-PV 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Examples of this same cabal and ilk of at least twelve
lying and censorous hypocrites and bigots abusing the
QuickPolls policy and forming mobs to ban and to
censor any other individual POV's that they do falsely
and do selfishly and do in their own distorted pov's
do find to be somehow "threatening" to them in some
way: 




User:24.45.99.191 (15 votes / 12 for / 3 oppose / 80%
in favour) This user is intent on labeling Carl Sagan
a pantheist. He will not accept any NPOV compromise
attempts (that edit was instantly reverted) and has
violated the three revert rule, even after a warning
not to do so. Please peruse the page history for more
information. He has also labeled other users "BIGOTS
and CENSORS" and put the entire text of the Carl Sagan
page on my talk page. 

I propose a 24-hour ban ASAP.¡ªEloquence 20:31, Mar
31, 2004 (UTC) 


I recommend extending this ban to all IPs listed as
aliases on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress:
65.125.10.66/24.45.99.191/216.99.245.171/216.99.245.184/66.2.156.38
- Texture 20:38, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) 

Note that the user has now, on his talk page, stated
that he finds my NPOV compromise acceptable, but has
gone around and pasted his preferred version on
various pages, including Talk:Carl Sagan.¡ªEloquence
20:46, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) Implemented. silsor 22:37,
Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) 

Support 


Texture 20:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) - this is not a new
trend EddEdmondson 20:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 20:34, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) - 24 hour ban
seems most wise. Hadal 20:36, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) -
Vogel has a long, tiresome history of trying to insert
his POV and attacking anyone who dare oppose.
UninvitedCompany 21:05, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Ruhrjung
21:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) (not sure if Quickpolls so to
say were intended for non-logged in users, but I think
it's a good idea) Michael Snow 21:42, 31 Mar 2004
(UTC) Tannin I'm not convinced that a quickpoll is
needed for this obvious case. To me, it looks like one
that any non-involved admin would be justified in
implementing without needing the poll. You could look
at it as a test case for using quickpolls as opposed
to the existing approach. --Michael Snow 22:40, 31 Mar
2004 (UTC) Ambivalenthysteria 23:40, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Taku 00:58, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC) Ashibaka &#9998; 01:16,
1 Apr 2004 (UTC) Adam Conover 01:36, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
- also see his similar behavior on Subject-object
problem and Talk:Subject-object problem. Oppose 

I haven't seen sufficient discussion by others in the
talk page. Put the dispute to a vote first. anthony
(this comment is a work in progress and may change
without prior notice) 21:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) I don't
see sufficient evidence of having discussed the matter
with him, warned him, etc... Paul is difficult, but
not unreasonable (he even agrees w the compromise now,
according to what is said above). Besides, I don't see
a big difference between the two edits, its not like
he was vandalizing or anything. I suppose I should be
greatful that you even discussed it, instead of
banning him outright, as usual. Sam Spade 22:36, 31
Mar 2004 (UTC) I never banned him. What are you
talking about? Countless people have tried to discuss
the matter with him, see Talk:Carl
Sagan/pantheism.¡ªEloquence I was refering to the
past, situations not involving you. He is banned alot.
And I don't see that discussion on talk:carl sagan as
having been considerate of wikiquette, paul is not
alone in having failed to be considerate in his
communications (again not refering to you, don't be so
thin-skinned ;) Sam Spade 00:25, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, I feel that I have been reasonable with PV in
the past, and he has always responded with an undue
amount of hostility. I think it would be a good idea
to send him an official message: "You can only go so
far, but not further. Please try to work with others
instead of bullying them into submission."¡ªEloquence
An official letter would be fine, but don't live up to
his expectations, if it can be helped. He is a lively
person, well used to debating these matters, but he
isn't a troll IMO. He provides info, w citations, and
sincerely wants to provide factual info in the
article. He also has been becoming increasingly more
reasonable about obeying policy. The only vanalism I
have ever seen him to do involved blanking a talk page
And that has almost never happened, in the aprox 6
months I have known him. He does have issues w
flooding talk pages or wikiquette, but I think that
stems for not understanding the applicable policies,
or overzealousness. Sam Spade 01:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The actual discussions on the article's talk page are
unreasonable. Efforts were not made to create NPOV;
rather, efforts were made to convince people that
Paul's POV was completely wrong. ugen64 03:17, Apr 1,
2004 (UTC) Comments and abstentions on 24.45 

Looks like a ban is appropriate. I've not been a
wikipedian long enough to vote, however. Dr. Z 20:52,
31 Mar 2004 (UTC) 

This user repeatedly reverted the Carl Sagan page and
made inappropriate remarks on the talk page.
GrazingshipIV 21:18, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) Do we need to
do Quickpolls for anonymous users? Kingturtle 00:36, 1
Apr 2004 (UTC) My first reaction is - no. The vast
majority of our vandalism is from anons, and I
hesitate to support anything that would make someone
reluctant to remove a misbehaving anon. ¡úRaul654
00:39, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC) I oppose Quickpolls on anons,
it would be impossible to do anything about vandalism.
RickK | Talk 02:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) I don't think
there should be any diff b/t anons with Userpages and
other users. One of the beautiful things about MWiki
is that anons automatically have a userspace. (Cf.
User_talk:24.45.99.191) +sj+ 21:10, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC) 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash