Revision 28635722 of "User talk:Wyss/a5" on enwiki

== DYK ==

{| class="Talk-Notice"
|-
|[[Image:Updated DYK query.png|Updated DYK query]]
|'''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' has been updated. A fact from the article '''[[Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler]]''', which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the [[Main Page]]. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on [[:Template talk:Did you know|the "Did you know?" talk page]].
|}

:After fixing that mixup. The text on the mainpage with the wording "Self-proclaimed" is not something I know you'd like to have there. You're an admin and can change it if you want. Actually, I feel a bit bad about having (sort of) been the one calling him a self-proclaimed vegetarian. Really. Which vegetarian isn't. But I felt that the original text I submited, hours after you made the article to the DYK section ("Hitler was a vegetarian and ..."), turned out to be so controversial that I either had to redraw my nomination, or refrase it somehow. And this was what I ended up with. Sorry if you feel this was wrong of me. [[User:Shanes|Shanes]] 21:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[[User:Shanes|Shanes]] I think you've been way helpful throughout all of this. While I don't like the PoV spin ''self-proclaimed'' puts on it, as you imply, all vegetarians are very much self-proclaimed and by most accounts so was he, to the point of endlessly lecturing people belonging to his inner circle about it at dinner. So it's ok. I think the ''Was it a Myth?'' section is still somewhat flawed in that the contradictions and chronologies of the cites aren't clearly pointed out, but the article is only two days old, after all. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 22:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

:Yes. And thanks for the kind words. But to be honest, I didn't quite like the way all this turned more and more into an article being there basicaly to prove or make others realise that he was or wasn't a vegetarian with lots of references to who called him a vegetarian, and who didn't. Instead of us just describing his diet. I feel we should have just stated and described what he ate and quoted what he said about it and not be this hung up in the term "vegetarian". That's why my initial sections had titles as "Diet and motivation" instead of "Historical support". But it depends on the reason for the article being there. I know it came much as a result of a controvercy on the list of vegetarians page, and with that in mind an article listing suporting arguments for calling him a vegetarian is understandable. But it seems a bit un-wikipedian to me to try reaching a conclusion in an article instead of just describing and citing authorative sources and let it be up to the reader wether his diet was that of a normal vegetarian or not. I think it was. But othes might have different oppinions. And that's fine. [[User:Shanes|Shanes]] 22:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

::Understood. I've found that unless one calls a ''thing'' a "thing" people have a tendancy to call it a ''whatsit'' (uhm, you know what I mean, I'm still waking up here- I like that word, I got it from watching an out-take from ''The Wizard of Oz''! :). I think the article will very likely get more succinct as time goes on. Also that Bee Wilson article has some interesting details (ironic someone cited it to "debunk" along the lines of Rynn Berry and didn't notice- I guess since the author is so loathing of the subject person- it totally supports his vegetarianism).[[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 06:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

==DYK, and list of vegetarians==
I didn't know the article was on DYK! Where is it, I don't see it in the archive. As far as disparate standards for Hitler and all other vegetarians...I was thinking that it would be interesting to see how Albert Einstein would fare in a "vegetarianism of..." article. Held to the same standards as Hitler, Einstein wouldn't get credit for a single day as a veggie, I bet. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 20:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but Einstein is (and should be) politically correct, and people like their heros and villains painted in broad, stark terms, never mind the truth. It was on the main page last night and this morning. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 20:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

== sic ==

Yes, I know what it means. You can't use it to signal that you disagree with the way a word is used. [Sic] is used to signify a simple error like a typing or spelling mistake. The way you used it on the page was wrong. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You're utterly mistaken, I have put a link [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sic] to the correct definition on your talk page. Please stop the careless accusations and disruptive, revert-based edit-warring, thanks. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 18:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

==3RR==

Aloha, Wyss.  I wanted to warn you that you appear to be in violation of the [[3RR]].  I count two full reverts and two complex reverts in the last 24 hours from you on [[Vegetarianism of Adolph Hitler]].  You may want to consider self-reverting your last edit to avoid getting blocked. --[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas ]] | [[User_talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 03:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

::Sigh. I didn't violate 3rr. This is an artifact of a PoV warrior's efforts to "defend" [[List of vegetarians]], which has spilled over into [[Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler]]. The above editor is so concerned about associating the name ''Hitler'' with ''[[vegetarianism]]'' that he has, among other tactics, proposed changing the article's name to ''Adolf Hitler's diet''. Meanwhile, for now I have reluctantly restored the passage he's concerned about, a wholly unsupported 1973 reference to [[Joseph Goebbels]] by a minor AH biographer which is contradicted by Goebbels' diary and most historians but used by vegetarian [[Rynn Berry]] in his evangelistic crusade to purge AH from lists of veggies worldwide. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 12:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Wyss, I don't appreciate being attacked after politely warning you of your 3RR violation, which came about as a result of ''your'' POV warring, not mine. --[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas ]] | [[User_talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 13:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3rr. Please stop gaming the system with inapprorpriate and misleading references to WP policy. Your menacing post here was simply a backhanded tactic for your own edit-warring. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 13:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

:Wyss, I'm willing to let this drop if you promise to stop edit warring.  I don't mind if you remove this entire entry from your talk page to wipe the slate clean, but I do think you made two full reverts and two complex reverts over the space of 24 hours, which is why I warned you.  I think its funny that you accused me of edit warring when I haven't done anything of the sort.  Notice, I haven't taken the bait on VoAH, especially when you made those bizarre edits in an attempt to get me to revert you. Nice try, though. :-) --[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas ]] | [[User_talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 14:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Your good sense of humour is genuinely appreciated but truth be told, twixies, I wasn't baiting you (and didn't even think about tit-for-tatting on 3rr). Either way I'd like to have that supported reference to Jewish kosher law and AH's anti-semiticism in the article so long as the dodgy NYT cite is there. The socio-political climate of North America during the late 1930s is rather well understood and described and the reference is utterly relevant. I've read more microfiche n.p. articles from that period than I care to admit and that reference to a frickin' slice of ham is a clever jibe, a sniggering joke designed to appeal both to the Jewish and nominally anti-semitic readership of the NYT during that time. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 14:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

== James Dean 88 kph ==

From the Los Angeles Times article [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dean1oct01,1,5288772.story "Remembering a 'Giant'"] (October 1, 2005):
:The collision with Cal Poly student Donald Turnupseed was Turnupseed's fault, [investigating California Highway Patrol officer Ron] Nelson said. And Dean wasn't going 90 mph, as has been widely reported. Nelson said the wreckage and the position of Dean's body indicated his speed was more like 55 mph.
--[[User:Howcheng|<span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight: bold; color: #33C;">howcheng</span>]]  | <small>[[User talk:Howcheng|talk]] &#149; [[Special:Contributions/Howcheng|contribs]]</small> 21:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll put it in :) [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 21:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

:Nice touch with the safety video. --[[User:Howcheng|<span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight: bold; color: #33C;">howcheng</span>]]  | <small>[[User talk:Howcheng|talk]] &#149; [[Special:Contributions/Howcheng|contribs]]</small> 22:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I saw it on the BBC :) [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 22:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

== Beatles ==

I certainly recall the hue-and-cry over John Lennon's public gaffe about being "more popular than Jesus now". He was never known for keeping his thoughts to himself, and he found that he had to backpedal on that one. However, I'd like to know how truly severe the "backlash" was. That is, you had your typical neo-Nazi burnings of their LP's and such... but did it really have any significant impact on record sales? I don't recall if it did or not, just wondering. Something to research in one's copious free time. :) [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 23:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sales were affected, there was (what amounted to) a ban on radio airplay in the "bible belt" of the southeastern USA. Some radio stations in that region did organize "Beatle burnings" where kids showed up and threw their records and other Beatles stuff into fires. In Europe, the Vatican was not pleased and said as much. Lennon was spot on, but on the spot... there are some things we don't say near a microphone ;) [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 00:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Kudos. People tend to forget that John was only 26 at the time. Public performers say a lot dumber stuff nowadays and seem to thrive on the bad publicity. The younger members of the audience may be under the impression that the 60s were wild and free-wheeling, but in 1966 things were still pretty conservative. It was only toward the ''end'' of the Beatles' existence that things started to get wild. I think what John said about Jesus was more in amazement than bragging, but the media kind of twisted his meaning. They did that sort of thing then. Unlike now. ;) [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 00:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't even born then, but my impression is he was amazed, yeah, and being critical too (then "taken wrong"). [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 00:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Having been a teen in the 60s, I can tell you that whatever you may hear about it that sounds like nostalgia, forget it. Going through it once was more than sufficient. The decade did produce some good music, though. :) [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 00:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it, my mum had all the fun and for that I got... boarding school ;) [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 01:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing that, remembering and possibly ruing the kind of fun she had, she was bound and determined that ''you'' wouldn't have any. :(

Good things about the 60s:
*Civil rights gains
*Space program
*Creative music

Bad things about the 60s:
*Riots
*Assassinations
*Vietnam War

Your proverbial mixed bag. :\ [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 01:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes and the grandparents had something to say too, but it was ok :) Meanwhile when I was little I heard lots of Beatles, Carly Simon and the Sex Pistols along with Sibelius, Schostakowich, Wagner, Von Karajan and the BSO!  [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 01:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, a good, well-rounded musical education. :) [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 01:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I did try to rebel but I dunno, Debbie Gibson was cool though she didn't have the wonted angst or whatever so now I face it and mist up to 'Scene with Cranes' from ''Kuolema'' (heh heh). [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 02:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

==Adolf Hitler==
In the Hebrew article about Adolf Hitler it written about the Jewish commander of Adolf Hitler. In the talk page of the article about Hitler it written that if we will add to the article information from the Hebrew article we will improve it! And what about Dr. Eduard Blokh who took care in Hitler's mother when she was ill and Yosef Newman who was the owner of pictures store and Hitler sold him drawings? [[User:Toya|Toya]] 18:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's all true but the article is way too long as it is. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 18:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:The article is long, but not complete. [[User:Toya|Toya]] 19:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, yes, however few encyclopedia articles are truly complete. Perhaps a new AH sub-article, called [[Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people]] (or something like it) would be the solution? Another irony not mentioned in the article- the homeless persons' shelter he resorted to in Vienna had been established by a Jewish philanthropist. I do agree that it's all interesting and provides context and lots of historians have mentioned the possibility of a connection, however tenuous, between his mother's painful death under the care of a Jewish physician and his later anti-Semitism. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 20:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

==Newspeak==

English has many gendered nouns.  Learn to cope with this fact, instead of reverting edits because you object to a single word.

::Note that the anon (who hasn't signed) lectures me after he himself has not coped, but reverted over a single word. Do as I say, not as I do? [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 11:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

== From [[User:Dominick|Dominick]] ==

Hi, regarding [[Hitler's death]], I was not trying to get his reference that it never happened, which I admit is hard. It is easy to find something that says Russians declined to test the fragment. If the positive statement is made, since it is a controversy with "Mr. Anonymous", a link would make it ironclad. Of course we all know Hitler is living on his [[Nazi moon base]] :-)! 
See you on Wikipedia! [[User:Dominick|Dominick]] [[User_talk:dominick|<sup>(ŤαĿĶ)</sup>]] 13:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr Hitler killed himself on 30 April 1945 but there is no evidence of any DNA testing so far. An American forenics expert did identify some surviving bridgework as his in 2003. The article was wrong about the DNA testing, which was already mentioned there when I began watching it months ago. I'd heard the rumours and thought they were true, but they don't seem to be. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 14:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

== Actress Stacy Armstrong  ==

Hi, I'm writing because I saw that you had voted to keep an article on indpendent film actress [[Diane Mela]]. A similar article about actress [[Stacy Armstrong]] was voted on back in Feb. 2005. Well, the whole deletion is in question because the vote should have been judged no concensus. But it was deleted anyway! 

So it is now being rejudged and thought you might be interested in voting on it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Stacy_Armstrong Stacy Armstrong debate]

Just thought you might like to know! [[User:Plank|Plank]] 18:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

===Onefortyone placed on Probation===
1) Onefortyone is placed on [[Wikipedia:Probation]] with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.

He is not banned from editing celebrity articles. Automatically reverting his contributions on the basis that he is "banned" is not justified. An administrator may ban him from particular articles if he gets carried away, but so far he has not been banned from any articles. My impression is that he is trying hard to find suitable sources. He is complaining to me about your actions. I think his complaints are justified. If he took you to arbitration over this I would vote to accept the case. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been dealing with that vandal for months, you haven't. However, truth be told, you're only the latest in a long line of admins and bureaucrats to have been manipulated by him (he's a WP admin and knows how to spin the system). Anyway he has violated his arbcom probabation and is as disruptive as ever. He has wrought and continues to inflict true damage upon this encyclopdedia. Your threat of arbitration (by even bringing it up) is so appalling and outside any notion of WP policy I think you should quit arbcom as of now. Either way, I don't think I belong here. I'm running into way too many editorial vandals and Wikipedia starkly supports them while tending to forget its own written policies. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 21:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

==A new committee==
See [[Wikipedia:Mentorship_Committee#Onefortyone]]. Perhaps they may be of assistance to you. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 02:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you should quit arbcom for abusively (mistakenly or not) breaking WP policy. I don't think you're helpful there. As for [[Wikipedia:Mentorship_Committee#Onefortyone]], they should hard ban 141 for mindlessly repetitive vandalism, never mind his broken probation. Meantime I meant what I said, I'm out. WP is too broken for me. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 02:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

:Say it (more specifically the last part of it) ain't so, Wyss. You may not need WP, but WP needs you. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 02:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

::Thanks Hoary. But what does WP need me for? Someone to threaten with arbitration to make some sort of twisted, way uncalled for and shattered point for show about process? Over a known vandal who is on probabtion and has already broken it? Truth be told, I think these people want utterly unsupported "gay celebrity" gossip in this encyclopedia, otherwise they'd acknowledge the docking difference between an encyclopedic article like [[Liberace]] and the groundless tabloid stuff this vandal has endlessly tried to put in [[Nick Adams]], [[James Dean]] and [[Elvis Presley]] for months, all to promote gossipy, utterly unscholarly down-market books by [[David Bret]] who by the bye is widely said to make up some of his content from whole cloth. Anyway I get the hint. Encyclopedic principles at WP are a priority unless, consciously or not, they clash in high traffic articles with the PoV, fuzzy and wontedly de-constructionist (or whatever) notions held near and dear by altogether too many admins and arbcom members. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 03:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Stick around, Wyss. Your skills are needed here. And, NOBODY at Wikipedia understands your integrity on Onefortyone's deliberate fraud better than me. I too am disgusted with the conduct of a few, but they are only a few and can be dealt with through facts. Note, that none of these people with an agenda can discuss views based on facts; they must rely on distortions, fabrications or half-truths and as such it is easy to expose them for the fake that they are. The only time those who play their little games here win is when they get people like you to leave. - [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 13:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

:Very well said, Ted. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 14:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks you guys, I'm reconsidering. :) [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 04:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

==Fred Bauder thread==
The thread regarding the request for arbitration against Fred Bauder has long since ceased to be productive. May I suggest a cooling off period with regards to that thread and that any follow up discussions be take to individual talk pages. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 02:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds helpful to me, thanks :) [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 02:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:Isn't Fred up for election in, like, a month? arbcom can barely make a decision in a month. Getting arbcom to accept this case won't do anythign that you couldn't do on Fred's reelection campaign. If Fred didn't violate any policy, then you may consider withdrawing your request for arbitration against him and addressing your concerns in his reelection campaign. And I don't think its a violation of policy for Fred to have withheld his real-life history, but that's just me. In either case, the thread on the talk page is seriously long past doing anything measurably useful, such as swaying someone to your point of view, so I recommend withdrawing as the bigger person. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 02:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't file the RfA against him but I do think he should quit arbcom for the reasons listed there. So far as continuing the thread, I'm glad you stepped in, it had become unhelpful save for showing me that Wikipedia has a serious and systemic weakness with scholarly sourcing methodology and an aversion to confronting it. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 02:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:The thread has now clearly hit the point of diminishing returns. While others may feel the need to continue sniping on the thread, may I suggest that you be the bigger man here and let them have the last word on the thread if there are further replies. It does not look like arbcom will accept the case, so further attempts to convince them are moot. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 21:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to convince them to accept the case, I didn't file the RfA, I was only trying to explain why I think disclosing details about one's personal life creates a responsibility to avoid the appearance of misrepresentation, especially when it comes to sensitive roles like arbcom. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 22:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

== RFAR ==

A request for arbitration involving yourself has been filed. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">dwolf24</font>]] ([[User talk:Redwolf24|talk]]) 02:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

==I am out==
So there it is. Totally uncalled for. Any responsible Wikipedian could discuss stuff politely with me here on my talk page and I'd likely cooperate. Fred Bauer started off with a threat of RfA, no prior discussion or contact at all and now we have the same thing again. I think that's abuse of the RfA process, never mind arbcom looks more and more like a basket case to me. As I said above, I'm done as an active user. Too much time wasted with people who don't know a scholarly source from a tabloid. They have other stuff on their minds, I guess :) [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 03:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:Oh, you mean the way ''Well, this very step has been tried by Ted Wilkes it seems. He has tried to RfAr Fred Bauder over this all. I would like to get a wiki-restraining order between Onefortyone and the two others'' is touted as the ''Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried''? Risible, and transparently so.

:Stick around, Wyss. Ride this one out: I don't think it will take long. Then take the advice that [[User:Giano|Giano]] gave me: stop spending so much time in the murky depths of WP (at that time I was heavily into VfD, which is of course how I encountered that nobody Ennis), and instead more time at the [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates|(claimed)&nbsp;peaks]]. Aside from the pleasure of dealing with a better class of article, one also encounters fewer salesmen and fools. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 04:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::...transparently so... and such a waste of time. I'll be about, not too active is all. I agree with your comment about murky depths and "better class of article" in that the majority of WP articles don't suffer from the salesmen and fools. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 04:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:::That's not so bad then.

:::As you may have inferred, your user page is on my watchlist. But I've removed a huge amount of other stuff during the last couple of weeks. A lot of those were articles on subjects in which I had zero interest, but which I was nevertheless chivalrously defending from further degradation. (Or so ''I'' thought. Others had a very different idea of my activities.) Well, I hope against hope that they won't be degraded in my absence, but not to see them pop up in my watchlist when I turn the computer on: that's a good feeling. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 07:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

== [[Clay Shaw]] ==

Since you were helpful in dealing with the conflict at [[Lee Harvey Oswald]], I was wondering if you wanted to pop by and have a look at the new additions to [[Clay Shaw]].  Thanks. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 04:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::Yep, I don't think the dodgy claims of a convicted perjurer should get 50% of the article space, or much at all. There's no evidence CS tried to hire a lawyer for Lee. Funny, again we have a contributor who is asking editors to refute an unsupported, hearsay notion, when it's his responsibility to provide solid citations. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 04:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the assist - that was pretty quick.  [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 04:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

== This is sad ==

I'm sad to see things having turned this way. You are a highly skilled editor for whom I have the deepest respect. I don't know if there's anything I can say or do to make you reconsider and come back to writing ''articles'', but if there is, let me know. I understand your frustration over a neglect for encyclopedic and scholarly standards. Many people are concerned over this, and there's a wikiforum I'd like to point you to, [[Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards]], in case you didn't know about it. I haven't really followed that forum much, but maybe a post there is more likely to draw positive, supportive and helpful feedback than what you have tried this far. 
Anyway, thanks for your countless high quality edits to wikipedia articles. I hope you'll be making many more. [[User:Shanes|Shanes]] 05:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks [[User:Shanes|Shanes]], for the pointer, too, I didn't know about it :) [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 05:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

==Faux-sincerity==

Your faux-concern is touching, being criticized for sarcasm by someone who wrote, on the very same page:

*''How is it possible (speaking only for myself here) for the mind to be boggled and bored all at once?''
*''The pith of it's in there, try reading it again?''
*''I'm not sure psychic powers are part of the required skill set for reading…''
*…''have you familiarized yourself with the background on this or are you only guessing?''
*''Could you please be more specific about the background materials you've checked into? Your own signal-to-noise ratio got rather high in that last post.''

Forgive me for thinking you unqualified -- morally or pedagogically -- to remark on appropriateness of language. And given the level of intellectual dishonesty you displayed on that page, I have every right to be skeptical about your alleged sincerity. 

Speaking of which, I'll also note that, despite my using one-syllable words for your convenience, you still are dodging the basic issues and bringing in irrelevancies and strawmen: in other words, exactly the same behavior you displayed on the page in question. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you finished yet? [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 15:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

==Sincerity==

I hope so too.  But at least we're seeing eye to eye, even if on opposite sides of the table. [[User:Variable|siafu]] 19:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:) On the bright side, maybe this will make people think about whether discussing a Wikipedian's real-life circumstances would ever be acceptable. IMO, it would only be acceptable within the bounds of stuff that a Wikipedian has disclosed on Wikipedia, and then only if it was relevant to some concern about behaviour. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 20:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)