User talk:FT2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FT2 (talk | contribs) at 08:09, 24 May 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia IRC channel: [1]

Services Link: [2]

Others: society -- religion -- studies -- research -- ap -- asa -- terminology -- emo


Controversy header good idea

Hey, good idea putting a controversy header on the election "controversy" page. Zen Master 17:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FWIW

I liked your original reply on the VfD page better.  :-) Baylink 19:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


link

[link]

[3] removale of academicallly supported info agreed in consensus, and replacement with POV comment. Apparently linking Z to P is OK but Z to H isnt. [4] removal of above by 3rd party

Another link: 1

THANKS!!

I did not have a chance to see what you were doing yesterday (nor have I taken a look yet today) but I was very impressed with the effort you were putting into this. Your process of collecting the consensus votes and working through the complete article, while at the same time posting to the talk page your progress to keep the antsy members of the contributing group abreast of your progress, seems to me to be a particularly appropriate form of agressive mediation; something I believe this article/dispute has been in need of.

While I cannot offer an appropriate reward, please know that your efforts have been noticed and strongly appreciated!

- Amgine 17:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to second this, reviewing the summary I constructed for the text, it seems like you spent a great deal of effort over this. CheeseDreams 22:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Zoophilia reconstruction

I am new here so please let me know if I am posting inappropriately.

I would like to comment upon the work that FT2 has done regarding the neutrality of the zoophilia article. I have come to expect Wikipedia to be a RELIABLE source of information with VERIFIABLE content. I would still like to see the appearance of references and links to peer-reviewed psychological and zoological references. However the wildly POV aspect of the original article has been well toned down and FT2 is close to a neutral discussion. Personally I find the whole subject distasteful but have had to study it from a psychoanlytic POV and therefore appreciate the efforts of FT2.

Thank you. --kaijura 21:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hiya. Thank you. We try. The harder a topic is, the more important it is to add balance and reliability, but thats not always easy either. A lot of people added work, and much of the balance was due to others.
A historic version of the page, with research quotes (Jan 2005), can be found here. I think that'll be what you are after. It contains a lot of peer review info of the kind you might be after, which turned up when I was originally researching it myself. The research was later removed from the article due to size constrictions. FT2 04:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I would just like to point you to the discussion page on the zoophilia article regarding the religious perspectives section.

comparing/contrasting Judaism/Christianity

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I value many of the changes you have recently made to this article. And I want to apologize for having been overzealous in reverting some of your earlier changes. I know that in one case you were — as far as my research shows — wrong about one of your edits, concerning killing in self-defense. But in reverting that I reverted other changes of yours. I am sure that as I continue to work on this article there will be times when I revert or edit other contributions you have or will have ade to the article. But please know that I will be more careful in the future, to make changes more judiciously. I think several of your recent edits have really improved the article, and I want you to know that I acknowledge that, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-linguistic Programming

Hi, would like to contribute to your NLP project. I am very new to Wikipedia so am not fully conversant with all tools etc, but would be happy to begin writing up some articles. I am a Master Practitioner with nearly 500 hours training and in 2006 will be starting a postgraduate diploma in NLP Psychotherapy, which is going to be be accredited by UKCP (UK main umbrella body for counsellors and psychotherapists). Am especially interested in modelling, but most other areas too. Mashenka 13:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with your assessment of the current state of the article. I am thinking it needs a complete rewrite. I am happy to work in with you on this. regards, --Comaze 01:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


,!--A simple model is, gather the various views, bullet them, and when everyone feels their views are on the list, design a paragraph that fairly represents them.-->

Please discuss large changes to policies before making them

I've reverted your additon of a section to WP:NPOV, as it seemed like too large a section to be added without any discussion. Please explain why you feel the need to add it on Wikipedia_talk:Neutral Point Of View. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

an idea

I have a proposition for you: make sure that the article Historical Jesus is consistent with all the work you have been doing on the Cultural and Historical Background article. Also, I share your enthusiasm for Sanders, but you should check out Paula Fredricksen's boo (or books?), Slrubenstein | Talk 21:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No rest for the weary, huh? At least you are well-prepared! (and, if you do find anything by Fredriksen, let me know what you think of her stuff), Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question and reference

What is the title of the chapter by Orlinsky?

Also, if you really want to know the recent scholarship on Jewish history, read Hayim Ben-Sasson's edited volume, A History of the Jewish People. It is far from cutting edge (came out in 1985), but this is at least 20 years later than Allen's series. And the amount of research done in the 1960s and 1970s, and the increase in the sophistication of research, was monumental. Allan is a legit source, but Ben Sasson is much, much, much better. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trance-formations quote (page numbers)

Under fair use, you need to provide a page number for a direct quote. best regards, --Comaze 01:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I beat you to it :) ... p.164 :) --Comaze 01:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support and contribute to a NLP cleanup project to bring them all the NLP related pages up to high standard. I'm sure GregA would be also. The 'As If' contribution is a good example. --Comaze 02:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, I checked a whole bunch of references and added page numbers so that other people could check what I wrote. I figure these page numbers can be removed at a later date when things settle down. I cannot believe that HeadleyDown just reverted your contributions like that, there must be some rule against it. I urged you to include my contributions, such as the additions of page numbers and where I've attempted to replace it with what "IT" is actually referring to help reduce ambiguity. If you think it is not appropriate to do so, please contact me. --Comaze 05:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category

Should Category:NLP people be deleted, now that it is empty? I can do that for you if you like, and if there is consensus for it. --HappyCamper 15:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done :-) Let me know if you have any other houscleaning tasks I can help you with. See you around the Wiki! --HappyCamper 15:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of POV-pusher & libeler conspiracy

This notification is being sent to FT2, Iantresman, Harald88, and Wetman, as these 4 people have responded in support of my proposition to include the wikipedia policy 'POV selective fact suppression'.

I made a note on the page wikipedia_talk:Neutral point of view that both the users Saxifrage and Dominick stalked me to said page, and that Dominick only started stalking me because Todfox notified him that I called him on his POV-pushing behavior on my user page. On my user page (user:NPOVenforcer), I have listed many people that have either pushed a POV and/or have used libel instead of fair argument, so as to warn innocent wikipedians of who to look out for. Saxifrage and Dominick both saw the list of trouble users, which included themselves as well as Todfox (aka 'Kit') due to their past offenses. Saxifrage and Dominick are thus conspiring to trying to suppress the POV selective fact suppression policy so as to give themselves free reign to make as many selective fact suppressions as they want. Also, Todfox is conspiring with Dominick to libel my informative list as an 'enemy list' via their RFC on my user page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NPOVenforcer (libel violates the wikipedia civilty policy, by the way), so as to try to get rid of the informative list and give them free reign to violate as many wikipedia policies as they want. On said libelous RFC, Dominick actually committed the criminal offense of trying to frame me of threatening his person, so as to try to put me in prison under false pretenses. I hope you find such behavior apalling as I do. It is for that reason that I am creating an RFA against Dominick to permanently ban his IP for his criminal offense against me. I hope that you come to support it. Why should you help save me from Dominick's offenses? -Because I am fighting to support the NPOV nature of wikipedia articles, so what benefits me benefits you through my actions, because you also support the NPOV policy. Besides, Dominick may victimize one of you next. Have you heard the saying "We will all hang together or we will all hang separately"? NPOVenforcer 05:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, whether or not NPOVenforcer's "bad editors list" hurt anyone it violated the policies on Civility and personal attacks. I think that is what got him blocked along with a name that made him look like he held an official position (Wikipedia:Username has been changed as a result of his banning to include NPOV as a prohbited username element). Kit 21:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Cases

I saw that you also filed an arbitration case. Good luck with that. It looks like our cases are very similar. Part of the problem is proving the exsistance of sockpuppets. It's really hard, which is of course frustrating. Most people play by the rules, but when it comes to proving that some don't, the bar is set pretty high in terms of trying to show what's happening. In our case, we are also having problems with one person posting POV statements. Anyway, as I said good luck. Davidpdx 10:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, would you mind if I whittled down the request for arbitration? There is a discussion going on the talk page about RFA's being too long and I thought that perhaps I could slim the request down to make it easier for arbitrators to read. Or you could do it. whichever. The request for arbitration is just a request, so all the details can be given once the case is actually accepted. Basically, the points I see that need mention is POV pushing, failed mediation, possible sock-puppetry, and a vote to request arbitration. That could be summarized at the top of the request. Then you could put your own personal statement in your area as you see fit. Anyway, just a thought. FuelWagon 19:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new summary, much more on point. The only suggestion I see is to have the word "invitation" be a link to the yahoo newsgroup post containing the actual invitation. Otherwise, I say go for it. FuelWagon 19:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've inserted your proposed summary. And I've shortened the section that explains that other attempts at dispute resolution have been tried. Feel free to revert if I've overstepped my bounds. FuelWagon 23:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop. Fred Bauder 02:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For Your Question

Ultimately, I don't expect or want to win, my candidacy is more or less a protest of current arbcom "impotence" for lack of a better word. Users like Jason are newbies and don't understand that sockpuppets are not acceptable under any situation, and having them there is just a temptation to use them.

He's a contreversial figure off Wikipedia, so it makes sense that he should fear harrassment, but it bothers me that he feels like he has to accept it. Situations like that are what the arbcom should be for, letting him know that breaking policy since policy doesn't seem to work is not the way to go since there are people out there who will help him if he is harrassed while following the rules. I am one of those people, and I hope after the election the arbcom will be too. Karmafist 20:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation of evidence in ArbCom cases

I would, personally, prefer to see the evidence presented in a explicative narrative in a logical order that allows the ArbCom to easily understand what has happened. This generally means that chronological is the best presentation; however, there are times (especially when there are multiple, overlapping episodes of questioned conduct) that not strictly following chronological order is useful.

I appreciate a clear, concise narrative presenting all the relevant evidence in context so that I can read it and understand what has transpired. Unfortunately, it is extremely rare to see this in an evidentiary statement on Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for yur help in the article about Gral. Shahnawaz Tanai. I really appreciate it, since in order to achieve a good article, language is also an important factor on it. Cheers ! Messhermit 21:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV Suppression draft policy

Hi what now? I think the text is quite OK like that, and there were no reactions, but where are you? can I just copy it somewhere to the article? Where? Cheers, Harald88 20:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi i replied on my page Harald88 09:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary, September 11, 2001 attacks

In an edit summary on September 11, 2001 attacks I wrote "'terrorist' is entirely correct; to call them anything else is to promote a point of view." I want to make clear that I did not mean to suggest that you were trying to promote a point of view, but that the the choice of militant in that context had that effect. Certainly it's a difficult enough subject as it is without adding hostile edit summaries; I hope I did not seem to do that. Tom Harrison (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Conspiracy theory disagreement

Hello FT2, if you have a spare moment your assistance would be most welcome to help us resolve this dispute. zen master T 22:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how (and why) do you hide your own text?

To my surprise, your comment:

.

does not show up on the page. What's happening? Harald88 12:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because sometimes less is more. Just because a nice wording comes to mind doesn't mean it needs to be said at that time.

OK, then you want people who comment to your comments know your thoughts but not people who don't want to coment on your comments?! Anyway, please tell me where you found that trick, so I can learn more about such wikipedia codes. Harald88 16:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
same way you did. I saw someone else do it. FT2 18:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edited talk pages

I don't understand why you deleted my comments from the 9/11 talk page. The guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) state "As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission." Please explain ~Sylvain 12/12/05

Can you send me a DIFF of this -- I dont make a habit of editing others comments, although at times I've fixed formatting if obviously problematic. Let me know a diff and I'll take a look. FT2 17:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No prob: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASeptember_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=30875393&oldid=30875378
Re deletion of your comment here Dec 11 2005: I think I see what has happened. I was in the middle of a series of 5 edits, and instead of editing off the previous version there's been an edit clash and a comment got deleted. Maybe I edited an older version or something that didn't contain that comment, or didn't notice when i patsed the text that your comment had been added to the page. I'm not sure. There were edits at 00:20, 00:21, 00:22 (yours) and 3 edits at 00:23. I'm pretty sure the deletion wasn't deliberate, but I accept responsibility for it. It was not my intention, if you wish to reinstate it, and I apologize. I hope this puts it right.
Copyposted to User talk:Sylvain1972 for the public record. FT2 19:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - thanks for taking the time to look into it.~Sylvain

Words to avoid

It's possible that I have not clearly understood what you meant to do with your recent edit of Words to avoid, or maybe you did more than you intended. Anyway, the result was to revert back over several versions where some of us seemed to be making progress. If I understand your edit summary, "A list of "arguments for/against" is not a platform for advocacy, which these edits clearly are", you seem to be suggesting, well what exactly? That only suitable arguments should be included? That other editors are using the article as a platform for advocacy? Perhaps this is intentional irony; If so, I guess I miss the point. It might be useful if you would undo this edit yourself; Then maybe tomorrow we can all continue working at a reasonable pace. Tom Harrison (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I do not understand your explanation. Neutrality of viewpoint is not something a wise senior editor imposes on others who are well-meaning but inept, which seems to be the thrust of your recent edit.

Neutrality of viewpoint is something we are all committed to. Urging others to go read WP:NPOV, and presumably meditate upon their shortcomings, is not useful. Neutrality of viewpoint emerges when reasonable men who disagree edit, compromise, and work to consensus. Peter and I were making progress before you felt the need to revert the page several versions back. Whether or not the edits you reverted were redundant (some of them were) or inaccurate are points that would have sorted themselves out in the normal course of editing, if the editing had been allowed to take its course.

You seem to be suggesting that I've used the page as a platform for advocacy. Your explanation, like your edit summary, resorts to words like "argumentative," "advocative," and "POV pushing." This is not the language of one who presumes good faith, and it's not language an experienced editor would use to encourage compromise.

Since the beginning of December the article has changed pretty dramatically, largely as a result of your work. This change has not been universally welcome, with some editors expressing concerns on the talk page. Please reconsider your methods. The 'my way or revert' approach to editing is counterproductive. Tom Harrison (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply; I am glad to know I mistook your comments. I understand you were remarking on the result of the edits, and not the intent of the editor.
POV is like sin; everyone is against it. You are wrong to think you can appeal to WP:NPOV as a written standard. We all read it, agree with it, and understand it to mean different things. Otherwise there would be the broad general consensus you hope for, that terrorist may only be used with attribution. I and others read WP:NPOV and understand no such prohibition.
We know something is neutral when a consensus agrees it is; when Jimbo anoints his vicar on Earth, that chosen one can tell us whether an article is neutral or not. Until then, barring personal divine intervention, there is nobody here but us equals.
Further discussion is probably specific to WP:WTA, so we can continue there. Best regards, Tom Harrison (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Libel?

I thought that, coming from your perspective, that you would prefer the inlined and numerous links I provided which showed that almost all the mainstream press in the English speaking world refers to the 9/11 hijackers as terrorists, instead of the possibly POV rendition sponsored by the U.S. Government. Personally, I would be less inclined to agree with the federal opinion and more likly to adhere to one from numerous sources outside the government. As far as libel? How so? You went into the article Words to avoid, made the changes that suited you and then filtered back in to articles with that "ace" up the sleeve. I can find the diffs if you want...do you really want me to?--MONGO 05:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Of course. But bear in mind that the subject matter was in WTA already. So what you need to do is:
  1. Get round the fact that my work on WP:WTA was cleanup, and the view on terrorism was there already before that. You've had the citation for that.
  2. Get round the fact you've said that I add things to WTA "in order to quote WTA elsewhere".
So, sure. Some diffs please. Not just ones showing I've cleaned up WTA and what I said elsewhere matches what's in WTA, because all that says is I'm consistent in abiding by best practice. You need to find diffs showing I added new things (that weren't there before), and then gone to other articles and said "Look, its in WTA so it must be right".
Since I know darn well there isn't a single time I've said anywhere "Look at WTA", Mongo... and since WTA already said that terrorism is often a POV term... thats called libel and personal attack. Its also a sign that you are not neutral as regard use of language. Thats the problem we have.
PS -- I seriously doubt you'll get this. I am anticipating a diff showing that I've added something about terrorism to WTA, completely ignoring that it was there beforehand, and then showing I said the same thing in other articles, completely ignoring the fact several editors have also told you it's a POV term they way you want to use it. So here's the thing Mongo... you've said, "I also enjoy how the two of you work on the Words to Avoid page and fill it with your POV and then go into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point". Since that's something I haven't done, that's called libel, and that's not a good thing for anyone to do. Don't do it.
FT2 09:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will be glad to show the differences. perhaps you believe it is necessary for me to show it in the exact same roundabout manner in which I labelled it. Regardless my friend, if you are threateneing me with a legal action...best think again about that accusation.--MONGO 09:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo... first you really need to read carefully. Thats several times you've read things that aren't there. Which is why you got into this mess of claiming things that aren't the case in the first case. Read Wikipedia:No legal threats, then read my words carefully until you finally understand the difference between an observation of libel and a legal threat.
And yes, how you claimed it is what you need to show. ie, that you represented whats so, not "Oh, I *actually* meant something completely different". Thats why your edits get reverted... because you read one thing, make assumptions, and edit another thing entirely. We've just seen it in your comment about legal threats. FT2 10:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a mess, it's of your own making. Diff's to support your POV: commencement of rewording at WTA here [5] more huge alterations here [6] and finishing up with these POV edits [7] you then cited WTA here [8], made a change here [9] and then, mysteriously erased it [10]. Did you think I couldn't read a person's edit history? To be honest, the format changes you imposed on WTA are so massive that it is almost impossible to see what substantive arguments you added. But I can tell you what you subtracted...every piece of argument that you didn't agree with, mine just to mention a few. You don't own that page and it's not a guideline or policy page anyway. It has never been brought before peer review and in fact, doesn't really seem to serve much purpose anyway. I am also well aware that the terrorist section was already there, but your alterations in tone and substance and elimination of other editors attempts to do the same shows an attempt at ownership. You made these drastic changes to a long standing page before you engaged in talk and there was a complaint about this. I provided plenty of citations that were placed immediately after the term terrorist was used in the article in question(9/11)...and that fits the Wikipedia:Manual of Style...or are you going to edit that too now?--MONGO 10:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good... but you still need to learn to slow down and read, not jump impulsively. Let's look at these one at a time.

  1. The rewrite of WTA doesn't change that "X is a terrorist" was already identified as a POV term in the previous version before I edited it for clarity: "However, that agreement only extends insofar as the article makes it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the narrative voice of the article where the terrorist identification is disputed."
  2. The "POV edits" you say I "ended up with" don't actually contain any POV. What they do contain is an edit of two statements added by Peter McConaughey, 1/ one of which states that if they call themselves terrorists it's probably fair for us to (kept), 2/ the other is an unsourced statement that "Certain acts in history are also indisputably referred to as acts of terrorism." (I am not aware of any acts in history that are indisputably referred to as terrorism, nor am I aware of any recent "terrorist attack" or "terrorist organisation" which is indisputably described as terrorist by everyone, but even if they did, it is still consensus that its a pejorative term, and Wikipedia tries to avoid pejoratives). (deleted as unsourced and almost certainly incorrect). Please read WP:NPOV again, until you understand what "X says Y" means.
  3. The "use" of WP:WTA you cite is actually not a "use" at all, it's a Request for Comment on "terrorism"! Its wording is, to be precise: "RFC - Is terrorist a dictionary term, so that Wikipedia can say in its own voice "Y is a terrorist", or is it an opinion of Y by X and should only be described as "X says Y is a terrorist". View that its an opinion here [CITATION], edits making the case it's a dictionary definition here [CITATION]".
    I'm still waiting for a single example of what you libellously wrote, namely that I "go into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point". See, that's called making stuff up, Mongo, and thats a bad thing.
  4. My request to RFC on terrorism, is not that surprising. We have an article disagreement. Seeking comment is the recommended way to gain new input on the disagreement. Like, this is a bad thing... why exactly? I removed it myself minutes later because I figured we may be able to solve this ourselves in the article. I'll relist it on RFC if it turns out we can't.
  5. As regards WP:WTA, I'm reasonably experienced at page cleanup. I've also reworked WP:ABOUT if you didn't notice. Both of these pages were edited. For example, WP:ABOUT was reverted to the version I worked on, by many subsequent editors including Texture, Ahoerstemeier, Sam Korn, Everyking, Wayward, etc.

In the meantime I am still waiting to see the slightest evidence of misuse. I doubt there is any, but we'll wait and see... FT2 11:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You made alterations to a long standing page, then when challenged by other editors, you either reverted them outright or changed the tone and argument. Then you reported it as if you had the concensus and others were somehow wrong in challenging your arguments. I wouldn't label it misuse. Again, the WTA article is just that, an article...it is not a guideline or policy page. If you are going to relist, creat a separate Rfc for the issue and list it accordingly, but not on the policy list since it isn't a policy, but instead a content dispute.--MONGO 12:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But you know what? You still, under all the accusations, have not shown a single instance of what you allege, namely that I "go into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point".
You aren't going to either, and that's what "libel" means. And that means you told a lie, which is a bad thing to do.

If, in addition to untrue accusations, you have a doubt as to editorial content on an article, then I suggest your place to address that is either the article, or RFC. But since the old article says virtually the same on terrorism, I doubt you'll have much different response than you're getting here and now.

So... you made an accusation. It was very specific, that I "go into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point".

Prove it. With diffs. Of "articles" (plural). Where I have said that to other editors. You said I do this. Show some instances of it. Thank you. FT2 13:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No lies were told. You completely revamped the WTA page and then began a formal complaint as if the concensus was behind you and then reversed your decision...a wise choice. You are quoting me, and I did not quote you with that statement. So sue me if you are too obstinate or obtuse to understand the hypocrisy of affecting the tone and sustenance of an article without concensus to do so and then try and complain when your radical changes are challenged. It is clearly marked [11] and that is where you called out a complaint that this reference point was challenged, after you did major reorganization and tonal alterations to the page. Also, can you please use edit summaries when editing articles...it's not that big a deal on talk pages.--MONGO 14:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's getting tedious asking for a single diff of what you state I do. Is it that hard to get? Mongo says I "go to articles" and do X. I ask for a few diffs to show me doing this on articles. I ask this 5 times so far and you know what? It's clear it wasn't true. That means you said something, knowing it was untrue. If you feel otherwise, then I'm still waiting. My above words still stand:
"You made an accusation. It was very specific, that I "go into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point". Prove it. With diffs. Of "articles" (plural). Where I have said that to other editors. You said I do this. Show some instances of it."
5 requests so far and all you can show is that I posted a Request for Comment giving both sides and later removed it. Not one case of article use as described, and RFC is appropriate for an article dispute anyhow. See, this is what makes me feel you are a POV editor.
You make a very specific claim. If you can factually support, diffs (plural), where I "go into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point", do so. I doubt you can, and this is the 6th time of asking. FT2 15:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
POV editor...um..I can accept that. FT2...I think you only see things from your POV. I provided the diffs. All I can state is what I have already stated...maybe reread my post? You know, I think our argument is just beginning....--MONGO 15:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, logically one of 2 things. You said I do something. I ask 6 times and you dont show evidence of it. You also misread basics like taking a reference to a libellous statement as a legal matter, and talk about RFC as making a "complaint" when it's clear the post solicited views both ways. What exactly do you think people, including myself, will assume that means? I take it that this reply means you don't want or plan to justify your original libellous statement with a diff showing "articles" I have said "gee, look here, you are going against this reference point" as you claim? FT2 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-linguistic programming evidence

On 11/28, you said you would present evidence "within a few days". However, it has been almost a month now, and you still have not presented your evidence. Can you explain that? Fred Bauder has commented, "It is time to come up with something." --TML1988 02:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Article corrections

Hello there! I was wondering if you could help me with another article that needs a little bit of grammatic and vocabulary corrections: Hafizullah Amin. Currently, I'm gonna try to push for it's inclusion in the main page, since it was an important political figure of Afghanistan before the soviet invasion. Thanks for the help! Messhermit 20:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for "about Wikipedia".

What the headline says. I was checking the aftermath of the Ciz war for unknown and probably masochistic reasons, was glad to see that you hadn't been driven off by it and more so when I found those few well-fritten lines. I'll have to add it to my quote list... if I ever get one. --Kizor 21:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death Penalty

Hi - you raise a good question and gnerally I agree with you. But aside from being precise, we ought to provide accurate citations for verifiable sources. Unfortunately, I do not know where in the Talmud one would find this discussion. I would suggest you look at Arthur Cohen's book Everyman's Talmud -- and I am sorry to say I may be mistaken about the author's name or the title of the book -- but look at it and see if he as any discussion of the death penalty. If he does, and I think he should, he would provide the specific Talmudic sources and of course you could cite his book, quote him and add it to the references. I do not know of any other published articles or books that trace the Jewish attitude towards the death penalty, althouh they may be out there. Kurutowski's Gohst (and I am certin I am getting his username wrong) may know. Of course, you know, the Rabbis who developed this stringent set of rules concerning the death penalty actully did not have any power to execute anyone (i.e., when Jews did have the power to execute, during the monarchies, it may have been a common and accepted practice. I only mean to say that when describing a people's values, we need to discuss not only what they say, but what they actually have done, too. At the same time, of course, the fact that the Talmud is more recent than the Hasmonean or Davidic Kingdom's is of course relevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

possible request for comment?

I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? [12] Slrubenstein | Talk 20:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP Article Arbitration

I would be grateful if you can tell me whether there is currently an arbitration on the NLP article and what is the current progress of the arbitration? Thanks --Dejakitty 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your input

I saw that you support the wikipedia policy against information suppression. Currently there is a VfD and RfC on an article of a scientific researcher that has made large and verifiable contributions to science and society, at Edward Smith (psychologist). I have verified the findings myself via observation and experimentation, so the findings are clearly real. However, Edward Smith has not been published in any major scientific journal, it is uncertain if he has gone through the official educational system, and even his identity is uncertain. Some people believe that any such subtle-but-important people that lack those social prerequisites can not make major contributions to society, and especially scientific advancement, and that any of their contributions are non-verifiable, period, despite methods of verification being outlined by the discoverer. I am curious what your stance on this matter is. IrreversibleKnowledge 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new policy or help tool for policy?

Hi FT2, why do you keep labeling the proposed examples of POV as "policy"? IMO, that can only cause confusion (as already happened), leading to less favorable comments. Harald88 07:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I see not much is happening with "POV fact suppression"; what do you think of instead adding the examples to the NPOV tutorial? If I had known at the time of that tutorial, I'd then have proposed to include it there (with a specific link from the NPOV page). Harald88 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

If you wish to make a true policy proposal, it is your responsibility to follow proper process and advertise properly. You have done neither. It was pointed out several times that this is really an amendment to NPOV, hence the move makes sense. As a stand-alone proposal, it should be obvious from the talk page that there is no support for this, and you have failed to address (or even respond to) most of the concerns given. Hence, the proper tag for this is "rejected". Continuing to propose something in spite of community opposition is not helpful, and neither is wikilawyering the issue. >Radiant< 11:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are working under the common fallacy that policy is decided by voting. Please read voting is evil. You should not look at the vote but at the community comments, most of which you've seen fit to ignore. Six out of eleven qualifies as "no support" for an official policy proposal, which you would have known if you had read up on precedents. And Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Information_suppression clearly shows that the proposal isn't linked from the usual spots where such would be advertised, hence your accusation that I didn't check for that holds no water, and in fact this implies that you yourself haven't checked properly. You are wikilawyering because you're arguing your case from process (and by accusing your opponents of lack of process), rather than discussing the merits of the proposal. Bureaucracy doesn't cut it here; time to move on. >Radiant< 16:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to be a pedant, at least do it properly. Read "how to create policy" again. Note how it says, boldfaced right at the top, Policy is not created by voting on it. Which part of that sentence don't you understand? Note also that one of the foremost supporters is a permabanned vexlit. That doesn't speak well for it. The WP:CS entry got removed because it was over one month old. During that month, you found five others interested in the proposal. The community doesn't care for this. At all. >Radiant< 16:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming case. Raul654 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There's no escaping your misdeeds

FT2. I'm still here, as you were unsuccessful in getting me banned after you were completely unable to handle mediation. Your list of biased niggles towards other editors is about as un-neutral as your editing on the NLP article. I have pointed out to the arbitrators that your name was not on the list of those being warned, and that it should be added.

Considering your NLP promotional campaign (NLP wikiproject), and your extreme selective editing on the NLP wikipedia article, it would be incredibly unjust for you not to be reminded to restrain your NLP obsession, and to admit to your clear vested interests in promoting NLP.

Just to remind you of some of your misdeeds.

  • You DID repeatedly paste your own POV (YOUR view that there is a discrepancy that NLP has been proven ineffective by scientists, yet is used in cults (As we all know, urine is imbibed in some cults also for the sake of applying psychological pressure, but it has no effect in itself).
  • You DID also repeatedly place extremely selective editing into the opening of the NLP article that left the rather damning conclusion off of the paragraph that you pasted in verbatim.

Considering this and other rather glaring evidence of your extreme bias in editing in favour of your own POV and your own vested interests, I suggest that you start to realise your own self-hyped credibility has suffered a great deal of damage.

JPLogan 06:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Current surveys

FYI, I reverted your last edit on Wikipedia:Current surveys because there were a whole bunch of changes deleted by it (by mistake I presume). I'd guess you used the wrong base version. Whatever changes you did intend will need to be added if you still think they're needed. -R. S. Shaw 03:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish views of Jesus

I noticed you were involed with the page "Jewish views of Jesus". I have made major changes to the article and would appresiate your input. Jon513 12:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 38% for major edits and 71% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 22:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, thank you. I don't mind this reminder at all.

Some statistics like how many have summaries, compared to the average, would be interesting and motivating maybe! FT2 (Talk) 22:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand. "How many" means how many of your edits, or how many other users have edit summaries? Thanks, and you can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request that will help Wikipedia. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to quickly understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email.
"For your interest, you used edit summaries on 38% of your last 150 major article edits and 71% of your last 150 minor article edits. The average for all article edits in the last 3 days is 52% and 61% respectively.
"This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so on my feedback page. You can also add the template {{NoMathbotMessages}} to your talk page if you don't wish such information in future. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 22:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)" (as modified by FT2)[reply]

Thanks, but I think it would be too much statistics to include the average for all article edits in the last three days, as then sme people may think the bot bugs people too much. :) By the way, there is no need to put {{NoMathbotMessages}} on your talk page, as the bot is designed to not write to anybody more than once, so that people don't get mad. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proposed policy disagreement?

Hi I just now came back from vacation, and slowly I'll have a little time - I saw your message of some 10 days ago, please fill me in about it (was it about your proposal?). You can send me an email. Thanks, Harald88 13:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Camonica2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Camonica2.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you.

Perhaps {{PD-Art}} is the right tag?

Regards, Dethomas 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Orphaned fair use image (Image:Drauper freak wave.png)

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Drauper freak wave.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 00:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Just to say that I think the work you do on here is interesting. (let me see if I remember how to sign this thing with the tildes) Saudade7 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted Computing synopsis

Most of what you took out of "synopsis" is really not repeated under "key concepts", and really needs to be in the article. I don't care about the concepts being slightly lower, but much of that material really is necessary. Would you work on reincorporating it? 19:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Cite

"Wikipedia does not exist to determine truth. It is not our purpose to decide if NLP's claims are true or not. It is instead our purpose to fairly represent both NLP's claims and the claims of its critics. The purpose of consensus within Wikipedia is not to determine truth, but to determine the wording of articles. Nobody needs to modify their personal views in order to achieve consensus on the wording of the article. However, anyone who is not committed to Wikipedia's core principles is likely to be more concerned with hammering their viewpoint than they are with agreeing upon wording which fairly represents all side." user:Jdavidb 

[13]

Re:Request

Sure. Just use the email link from my talk page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link says "Email this user". Everyone has it. Depending on the skin you use, it's on the left hand side of your screen or up near the top or the bottom. If you are using Internet Explorer, go to my user page, go to the Edit menu and then go to "Find" and just type in "Email" and then find. You'll find it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, if you set an email address for yourself, I can email you and we can do it that way. I am just not comfy with putting my address up. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1.0 Team

Hi, FT2, welcome to the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. One way you could help is by working on the core topics. We have a [list] of those most in need of attention]]. Maurreen 17:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Differences

Loved your response at the Science Helpdesk on a thread that was moving in a troubling direction.

That is all. --Ginkgo100 03:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


thanks

Thanks for the help on the science helpdesk and the link to Last_universal_ancestor. You rule!! Do you have a LiveJournal or website?--Sonjaaa 04:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned users

Banned users aren't allowed to post anywhere on the website, FT2, not in articles, article talk pages, or in user space. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Just so you didn't miss my reply: [14] Raul654 05:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&oldid=54857460"