Please do not add this article back to see also lists when people remove it. You have seriously overdone it. Some of those articles are so distantly related as to make the link completely pointless. A Ramachandran 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What is it with this obsession? --Loremaster 15:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you have succeeded in doing is attracting the attentio of editors who would like to delete the page.1Z 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they were to delete the page then that that would say a lot about wikipedia and its editors.

Or about the page

However, since they have not deleted the page it's unfair and premature to jump to conclusions. So far they seem like a reasonable bunch.

why did you move computaionalism?1Z 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was trying to put related concepts together so that the material would flow a little better -- but since some of it has now been removed my original intent might be moot.

I do not not want the links alphabetised. I didn't even realise that was what you were doing. Sorry. I believe that I was trying to revert some vandalism and reverted the wrong edit. I apologise. --Catalyst2007 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page

it is a heuristic rule, and not a natural law, it is not an infallible guide as to what is ultimately the truth, but only what is usually best to believe, all other things being equal. Assuming Occam's Razor were applicable to the Simulation Hypothesis ^[citation needed], it would tell us to reject it as being too complex, in favor of reality being what it appears to be. However, critics point out that all things are not equal, as evidenced by our dreams ^{[citation needed]}, and therefore this analysis does not apply. Another objection is that when all things are equal the simple answer can still be wrong.

1Z 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. It's a link to your own blog. See

________

This is a rehash of the discussion section. The purpose was to illustrate a point -- when you (Peter Jones) link to either your own blog or what purports to be your "buddies" blog to make further argumentative points it weakens the article.

I haven't linked to my own blog. If you have alternative references, feel free to add them.

So far your reaction to a "citation needed" tag has been to delete it.1Z 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result is people create wikis and blogs to refute you. You're dedicated to coming a conclusion for the reader rather than allowing readers to come to their own conclusion.

You've obviously researched a lot of areas and that's a good thing, but sometimes you bring too much information to a section and ask too much of the reader. The result is too much information that is off topic. Computability of Physics is a good example.

You're the only one who seems to have that problem.1Z 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph you state it doesn't really apply and things are safe and then go into a long drawn out analysis. Why? Simply if it and make it comprehensible. Lordvolton 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood.1Z 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LV, Please jump back to simulated reality to help me a little with peter. He is a little bit argumentative rather than constructive. I noticed that occums doesnt really apply here because "all things being equal" (I saw that logical error before noticing that anyone else had the same objection) Also I did a good re-org that he blocked. Artman772000 16:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)artman772000[reply]

I'm not sure what you were trying to do linking the book into multiple articles on 27 December 2007. I'm removing them per

I think the logic behind the links are self-explantory and your reference to the linking rules doesn't help. The links were to the book itself and not a webpage. So you need to be more specific.

As a external link that you added to multiple article at the same time, I think it qualifies as a spammed link per WP:SPAM. I don't think it meets WP:EL either, even if you had only added it to one article. And you added nothing but links to these articles, so I think you should look over WP:NOT#LINK as well. --

talk) 03:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

See especially

talk) 03:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You seem to be arbitrarily deciding what is "SPAM". I didn't write the book. It's relevant to the content which is why it's linked.

I'm doing my best to follow the policies and guidelines that I've listed. --

talk) 17:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm concerned that twice now ([1] and [2]) you've added back the same link. There are many approaches we can use to

You wrote [3] "I wanted to open it up for some additional discussion to make sure that others were allowed to participate before a final decision was made." You're too late. A decision has been made, you cannot undo it by this means. There is an appeals process against AFD if you insist William M. Connolley (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A

Hi. Thanks for the comment on my talk page, I've added my comments to the article regarding the deletion. Just out of interest, what made you think I might have something to say on the matter? --Rebroad (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating the Measurement causes collapse page. It is a huge improvement over what was in the CCC page. Nhall0608 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Measurement causes collapse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Measurement causes collapse. Thank you. Melchoir (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

]

Barnstar for you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For knowing when an admin was wrong. Keep doing what you believe is right, even when others say you are wrong. Malamockq (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

I've blocked you for incivility. Lets try to keep the AFD polite, shall we? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Connolley's feathers were ruffled by the following comment:

"William if you have any sense of integrity you'll place the same "this user was canvassed" notice beneath Peter Jones. Or do you only want to complain about those who disagree? It turns out, contrary to your assumptions and accusations, that wikipedians have their own minds and the ability to exercise free will. Lordvolton (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)"

Did he rise to the occasion and give the same treatment to everyone? Not surprisingly, he did not. Instead he chose to abuse his admin authority, as he's done in the past, and punish those who disagree with him.

Is this the best wikipedia has to offer? Lordvolton (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a full transcript please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Measurement_causes_collapse

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lordvolton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

personal bias, see my talk page.

Decline reason:

incivility was very clear. at least three phrases used were inappropriate. — BozMo talk 15:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Fair enough, so when I get a list of similar phrases uttered by William Connolley is he going to get the same treatment? Or will there be a double standard?

______________

I see that BozMo and William are editing pals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shell_to_Sea

Anyway, here are some of William Connolley's greatest hits:

“Ed, you can't even spell my name right, let alone do the science. Go on: ***in what way is that statement controversial?”

“Good grief. He can't keep his own homepage up to date.”

“Sloooowly you are getting there.”

“yet more pap. repeat after me: I do *not* need to have the last word.”

“Ed, this is stupid.”

“Just when it looked like we might agree... Ed makes a hairy mess.”

“Ed, you've lost countless arguments on the GW pages, don't re-open them here.”

“Feel free to waste your time, but in future could you please avoid wasting mine?”

“enough tedious ambiguity”

“What are you talking about, old fruit?”

The condescension and ridicule of others is obvious. But I don’t suppose his editing buddy, Bozmo, will do much about it.

I am flattered that I might have a "buddy". Am I yours now I have edited your talk page? Seriously though there is a difference between bluntness and rudeness. You didn't really have a case about him pointing out the canvas since you, not he, had canvassed both... "abuse of admin power", claiming he had made an accusation without providing a diff (I did have a look in his editing history) etc. is language which you should not make without a good case. --BozMo talk 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you expect us to believe that you appeared on the measurement causes collapse afd page by sheer coincidence? I think not.

When someone is blocked and they request the assistance of a third party the process assumes the third party is non-biased. You should have recused yourself, but I guess you assumed I wouldn't do any research and uncover your connection to William?

What is the process to have these matters turned over to a higher authority? Lordvolton (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a similar impression of Connolley, that is, dismissive of what he perceives to be factious complaints from the opposing side. In my case, we would seem to agree with content issues, but not about ethical pursuit of consensus. But it would be nice (or rather, more effective to complain) if someone who hasn't been blocked by him, shared this view. Mostly we just sound like people whining for having been blocked; since no third party questions his conduct, he can just ignore what appears as mere whining. Do all third parties merely agree with him? Or are they merely unwilling to go to so much trouble? I don't know. Both Connolley and Ronz simply ignore
  the WQA. Pete St.John (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I guess it's up to all of us to hold these rogue admins accountable. Lordvolton (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not look at the case so I'm not giving an opinion on it. But I for one am surprised that BozMo, who I considered ethical from my experience, went so far as to endorse a block by WMC. They certainly can be considered to work together on Wikipedia. And there is indeed a double standard in Wikipedia about civility. WMC is obviously immune, and so are some other admins known to side with him, while they can use their powers to enforce this policy when it suits them. I would not know where to start if I was to look for compelling instances. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh flattered twice. The secret Cabal must be worse than the Spanish Inquisition if it took nearly 5 hours or however long it was to arrive. On one checkable fact I turned up on the deletion page first and then set off to your talk page to warn (not block, I am a softie) you about incivility. Your reaction to the block made it clear the ban had been the right call, you were still holding forth without apology. And sure, someone like me who has 15 years working as a senior manager for an oil company is so just bound to end up "working together" with a long term Green Party candidate like him that its a fair cop. And we all know about holding

Rouge Admins to account. Of course, I repeat that the block (and a block is no big deal even WMC has been blocked) was kept because it was justified and you were going off the deep end at a deletion discussion. Childhood's End why not look through the edits more carefully? My respect for you (which exists, as does sympathy for your frustration with how these things sometimes go) would be greater if you joined in only when there really was a case to make. --BozMo talk 21:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh perhaps. But one of WMC's quips above was in fact directed at me recently, so I felt involved. As I said, I did not judge the block. I only think that you should not endorse WMC's blocks for transparency reasons. As you can see, it raised questions very quickly.

Also, we both know that there are problems with how things are handled sometimes. I think that the rouge admin page, which essentially jokes about this, only makes things worst, even though I would concur that admins, as a group, are subject to some criticism that is way out of line from time to time. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am thankful Childhood's End took the time to confirm that you and William work together, a fact that you apparently attempted to deny. If you were not an administrator I wouldn't be taking issue with you, but because editors place their faith in admins to treat them fairly I hold you to a higher standard.

Again, the proper course of action would have been to recuse yourself. And once I appealed the block that you were reviewing, absent recusal, you certainly should not have then gone into the afd page and supported the deletion of the article that originally caused the strife between myself and William. And after that you should not have threatened me with a block for accidentally miss spelling his name.

Lastly, you should not have discounted the thoughts of Childhood's End. Lordvolton (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vehemently disagree with this block. What Lordvolton said was strong, but not incivil. I have seen much worse. Users using capslock, and screaming. William, you have said worse things. At most, a friendly reminder of being civil, would have been appropriate, but not a full block. Malamockq (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The excerpt below is taken from William Connolley's talk page. Initially I wasn't quite sure what BozMo was talking about when he threatened to block me. I now realize he was referencing my accidental miss spelling of the last name "Connolley" as "Connelly".

This is the kind of rogue administration that gives Wikipedia a bad name.

For a review of this same issue please see my talk page. Mr. Connelly is hardly the admin to be providing clarification regarding civility. Lordvolton (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, deliberately getting a name or title wrong is also uncivil. You have done this to Dr Connolley twice, lets not end up with you getting another incivility ban, eh? --BozMo talk 20:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? So you're threatening me with a block for complaining about the process itself? I'd like to request that someone review this entire discourse and determine whether you should be given authority to ban or block anyone who finds your abuse of administrative authority disturbing. Lordvolton (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lordvolton (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lordvolton, I think you have kind of reached a decision point. Would you like to engage with the community and join in helping write Wikipedia or do you want to play the role of someone who complains about conspiracy and shadows? If you do want to be a constructive editor I am quite prepared to take the time and effort to explain patiently why your conduct was inappropriate, and how to help. Personally I don't mind putting this rather bad tempered episode behind us but if you want to carry on in the same vain because that's what you enjoy, then it will take you where it takes you. --BozMo talk 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, BozMo. I'm always very supportive of admins, as I know the kinds of nonsense they have to wade through, but claiming that mispelling "Connelley" as "Connelly" twice is deliberate is reading something into a situation that just isn't there from a neutral point of view. Connelly is a more common spelling, and two mistakes does not make a deliberate campaign. I don't think there's any kind of conspiracy or other such nonsense here, but I think that you need to take a deep breath and think a little here. Ianbetteridge (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vain? Anyway, its Connolley William M. Connolley (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if you've become rather heated following the deletion of an article on a subject in which you are interested. This is not uncommon. Your comments since have been somewhat problematic, leading I see to a brief block. I'd like to give you a small piece of advice from someone who has been around here for a while and also gets angry about content disputes. The advice is this: remove all related articles and debates from your watchlist, and make a note to come back in maybe six months. Don't touch them in the mean time. Don't go to the talk pages of admins involved in the dispute, and don't try to argue that you were right all along, because having looked at the block you received I have to say that 8 hours was at the lenient end of blocks we hand out for that kind of comment. There's no point baiting the admins, because the admins are just folks. We're all volunteers here, after all. I can tell you form long past experience that escalating the dispute will only result in your gaining a reputation as a troublemaker, and that can take a while to shake off. You've had your say on the subject of

From what I can see, I can understand his frustration about the outcome since the subject was obviously notable, was decided upon by profane editors, and was essentially deleted on the ground that it amounts to some pseudoscience, whereas it has been overlooked that quantum physics are still borderline themselves despite being more mainstream. The witch hunt against what is perceived to be pseudoscience in Wikipedia produces bad effects from time to time. But still, imo, Guy's whole advice above is very sound. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the content, it reads like nonsense to me, but most quantum mechanics does, I am an electrical engineer so I think anything less than half an amp is leakage. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lordvolton. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

Once we've isolated the culprit we can decide whether it warrants further action. Lordvolton (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qualiam is removing the simulated reality section in accordance with a majority verdict on the talk page, his/her actions are entirely appropriate, you are the problem. 1Z (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're still trying to locate the primary account of Qualiam who appeared out of the ether editing only the dream argument article. Sadly, we may have a sock puppet on our hands but we won't know until we isolate their true identity.

Any ideas on who might be motivated to create a consensus supporting their own opinion? It would have to be someone exceedingly arrogant. But that probably only eliminates half of the possible candidates.

Let's work together on this one Peter. I know you're as anxious to bring this person to justice as I am.Lordvolton (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qualiam is not my sock puppet, if that is what you are insinuating. Please edit according to the rules.

Note that user:Graymornings also agrees with the deletetion. 1Z (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking all the neural net and neuron model pages to "memristor" is a bit of a stretch for relevance, don't you think? None of those pages have anything to do with hardware models. I suggest looking up analog neural networks or something similar. And linking on biological models that aren't even used in computational NNs, such as Fitzhugh-Nagumo and Hodgkin-Huxley, is enough of a stretch that I would even call it a blatant you-should-know-better mistake. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I don't think that's the case otherwise I would not have gone through the trouble. In the future you should communicate with the person with whom you disagree. That's standard etiquette. Otherwise you may find your edits being treated with the same degree of respect. Lordvolton (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Lordvolton (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, you don't think that's the case. However, I think at this point it's vandalism. They have NOTHING to do with biological models WHATSOEVER, and it seems to me like it's a shameless plug of something of which you're either involved in marketing or overly-hyped. For the sake of dignity, I'm just going to ask you to remove the irrelevant links yourself. However, don't be surprised if others remove them for you beforehand. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If other editors remove them for legitimate reasons that's fine. However, your method of unilateral removal without opening a dialogue is extremely unprofessional. Also, your accusatory tone is not appreciated. Lordvolton (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't targeting you specifically. You hit on several articles on my watchlist in computational neuroscience, and I determined based on my knowledge of the field that it was a bad addition. Since you did it to so many articles at once, I interpreted it as spam. Maybe my interpretation was wrong (I'm not yet convinced you're not pushing an agenda), but based on it, my actions were justified. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems you've had problems with link-spamming before. How was it resolved last time? If it wasn't, I'd like to get a third opinion on this and resolve it once and for all. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"(I'm not yet convinced you're not pushing an agenda)" - insult by Samuel Riv

I guess you can't let up on the insults can you? Do you always assume people work for a marketing company or have a hidden agenda if you disagree with them? The fact that you have a chip on your shoulder and the energy to unlink to the memristor article makes me wonder where all of this hostility is coming from?

"a shameless plug of something of which you're either involved in marketing or overly-hyped" - previous accusation by Samuel Riv.

Other than your insulting conspiracy theory what evidence do you have that I work for a marketing company promoting memristors? In your fantasy world you probably think I work for CIA too? You need to learn basic etiquette and avoid libelous accusations without a single shred of evidence apart from your own paranoia. And stop making promises you obviously cannot keep.

"For the sake of dignity, I'm just going to ask you to remove the irrelevant links yourself." - False promise of Samuel Riv

I guess it wasn't about dignity after all? Since you now want a "second opinion". I'd like to get some background information on you since you seem to protest a little too much. Why are you so adamant about removing links to the memristor article Mr. Riv?

What's in it for you?

Lordvolton (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, SamuelRiv. LV isn't a plugger, he's a crank. 1Z (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that, Peterdjones. But Lordvolton, I have kept my promise not to remove said links for now. The hardware simply has nothing to do with neuron models, a subject about which I care a lot and on which I use this site to help research a lot. I only ask for the second opinion because somebody complained about link spam from you before, so I figured you may want that issue resolved in a general manner. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from outside Hi. I was approached by Lordvolton about this dispute, so I'm here with my 2¢. It occurs to me that, while someone may believe Lordvolton to be a "spammer" or a "crank", that simply doesn't matter. Talking about editors is a good way to lose the real topic, which is the edits. The dispute here isn't whether Lordvolton is a good editor; the dispute is whether the links he's added are good ones. I would suggest that the best way to handle that dispute is not by arguing with each other and calling names, but rather by getting other Wikipedians to comment on the edits in question.

We've got guidelines regarding linking - why not ask people at the talk page of

WP:VAND), it is logically impossible for anyone who thinks they're improving Wikipedia to be vandalizing. We restrict the word "vandalism" to very clear cases, such as insertion of random obscenities, or page blanking. If you bring up accusations of vandalism in other cases, my experience has been that the time to resolve such disputes is much longer than if we stay on-topic. I think it's pretty clear that everyone in this conversation is contributing in good faith, and even if they aren't, it is not pragmatically helpful to make claims of vandalism. The only way to the solution is to stay on-topic.

Now, Lordvolton, it is now clear that there is some dispute over the memristor links. Whether or not you agree with the way the dispute was initiated, it has to be dealt with before editing can continue. Re-inserting links that have been deleted, even if you don't like the way there were deleted, tends to draw out the dispute rather than resolving it quickly. In general (excepting blatant vandalism), making any edit twice is a sign that discussion should already be going on.

Lordvolton, have you got any evidence that there is consensus support for the links in question? Have you asked people at the talk pages of the relevant articles, and what did they say? Whatever SamuelRiv may think of you, that's not the important topic. The important topic is: is it reasonable to add certain links to articles? What does the community say about that in this case?

One last thing, Lordvolton. I would recommend very strongly against "[getting] some background information on [SamuelRiv] since you seem to protest a little too much." Are we here to write an encyclopedia, or to play Cloak & Dagger? If you allow yourself to think about why he's opposed to the links, then you're going off on the same unproductive tangent that he's on when he talks about whether you're a spammer or a crank. Drop. It. Rise above it, and use these servers for talking about the encyclopedia, not about each other. If you really like each other that much, get a room. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Many thanks for your insights GTBacchus. Your points are well taken. Lordvolton (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda new here, have had some bad experiences already, and am thus kind of pissy, so I appreciate the reality check. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a request for consensus on the relevant

WP:CONTEXT talk page, which I hope was fairly unbiased in its presentation with my opinion clearly stated. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

June 2009

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to

edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Willking1979 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Charles Zellenoff, Charlie Z etc redirects of Charlie Zelenoff

Can you please explain why there you are removing these redirects whilst there is an ongoing AfD proceeding on the article?--Vintagekits (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you keep promoting, linking, and redirecting a spoof page? I assume you're not the guy pretending to be Charlie Zelenoff?

Whoever is behind the persona of Mr. Zelenoff needs to be respectful of our time and desist with the media experiment. Please pass thing along to the UCLA student posing as Charlie Zelenoff. Thank you. Lordvolton (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the BoxRec record and his professional licence which is registered nationally are "spoofs" and the promoter and the Youttube clips are "spoofs" - then its not a spoof.

You still havent answered my question. In other words - dont do it again or I will report you to admin. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spoof article has been deleted for the third time. I see no reason to continuing wasting our time on this topic. Lordvolton (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it that you actually havent got an answer as opposed to not wanting to continue the discussion. I think you are mixing up the terms "spoof" and "non-notable". In a !vote of 4:3 it has been deemed that at this moment he is not notable. However, with an upcoming fight next month there will be more material on Zelenoff and the likelihood that the article will be recreated. Personally, I look forward to it!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to move on with your life. Lordvolton (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Frank

A friendly note, you may have breached the

WP:3RR reversion limit on that article. Please be careful, and consider reversing your most recent edits there - keep in mind that separate reversions of different material are often counted towards that limit. I won't file a report and have no particular opinion on the content, just don't want to see anyone get into trouble. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Violation discussed at: [4]

Edit warring at Barney Frank

WP:AN3#User:Lordvolton reported by LotLE×talk (Result: 24h). The discussion raises complex issues, but none of those issues give you the right to exceed the limit of three reverts in 24 hours. You are expected to search for an agreement on the Talk page, and not continue to insert your material before consensus is found. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

So much for "not doing anything". How many editors make these decisions? You all need to coordinate your POV defense efforts.Lordvolton (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad block. Punitive and uncivil. There was no ongoing issue with reverts, the last one being several hours old and there was no warning issued. Please try to be more collegial Eddie. Also, you should make suggestions for how the issues LordVolton raised can be resolved. Instead you ignored his concerns. Pretty disappointing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have lost respect for Lulu, who happens to be a Massachusetts resident (surprise, surprise). In the end he yielded and offered a compromise, but only after abusing of the Wikipedia complaint process. It's that sort of third grade bullying that gives Wikipedia a bad name. I presume editors such as Lulu grow so accustomed to their unilateral reverts that they view it as an insult to their intelligence if someone asks for an explanation.

I am sure he's pleased as punch that Ed Johnston hands out bans based on his word alone. Ed should have read the discussion section and the revert comments where he would have seen Lulu's REFUSAL to have a discussion until AFTER he enacted the flawed (and obviously biased) banning process. The number of participants on Wikipedia are diminishing because it's so easy for bad apples to game the system. Lordvolton (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the jungle. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.

I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:

Loremaster says he is:

"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

Loremaster wants people to:

"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."

Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

81.151.135.248 (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB[reply]

1. LOL
2. Despite the fact that I openly admit to being a technorealist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms, I have let never this point of view influence any of my edits or reverts of the Technological utopianism or Singularitarianism articles. On the contrary, I am the person most responsible for expanding the former article with content some would argue is “pro-techno-utopian” (i.e. passages from James Hughes' book Citizen Cyborg).
3. I find it disgusting that 81.151.135.248 would take comments I made out of context to falsely make it seem I see my editing of any article as part of my fight for the environment.
4. In light of this outrageous act of bad faith, I will do everything in my power to get this jerk banned from Wikipedia.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm Roscelese. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Douglas Karpen. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the talk page on the article. I've added multiple reliable sources to address your concerns (e.g., Washington Times, Dallas Morning News, The New American, and The National Review). Please do not revert without discussing changes -- unilateral changes to an article without prior discussion is bad etiquette. Lordvolton (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please make yourself aware of

WP:CANVASS. Inviting people to your discussion specifically because they've disagreed with me in the past is right out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm inviting them to discuss you and how to address what appears to be agenda driven edits. It's amusing that you're worried about procedure when you make unilateral edits without seeking consensus. I'm looking at your contributions and I'm starting to see an alarming pattern. If you're a POV editor then we'll need to take corrective actions. Wikipedia is not a personal platform to spread ideology. Lordvolton (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to pursue the issue with you. Please just realize that deliberately seeking out people that you know dislike me in order to stack a content discussion in your favor is a violation of our behavioral guidelines, and don't do it again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not just off the deep end. How do you know they "dislike" you? Simply because they're involved in another conversation (that I am involved in too) regarding Rachel's Vineyard doesn't mean they dislike you personally. I doubt they know you well enough to come to that conclusion. If you were polite and attempted to reach consensus with other editors you wouldn't need to worry about how they feel about you. What they probably "dislike" is your lack of etiquette and editorial behavior -- but that doesn't mean they dislike you personally. I dislike your edits and unwillingness to be cordial to those who disagree with you-- but I don't personally dislike you. I am sure you have your reasons for being so hostile and you no doubt believe that the ends justify the means when you steamroll over other editors on Wikipedia. It might even feel empowering? However, that doesn't mean the people you're steamrolling over are your enemies. Some of them might only want good things for you. It's easy to "like" people who agree with you, but trying to find the "good" in those who disagree with you is a nobler goal. Lordvolton (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't use ANI to file frivolous complaints. It makes you look bad and wastes everyone's time in addition to your own. I suggest that you read
  WP:BLP so that you understand why it was wrong of you to repeatedly add unreliable sources to the former article on Douglas Karpen, and give the matter a rest. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • Rather than being dismissive of the ANI. You should take it seriously. I am going through the trouble because of your abusive behavior. Lordvolton (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhrr . . . djuhthink?

Yeah, LV, you are definitely dealing with a political POV warrior here . . . and quite an unpleasant POV warrior at that; dotes on insulting editors that she finds oppositional. In the case of the Douglas Karpen article, however, I would suggest riding out the storm. Even if the article is deleted it will likely be temporary because if the charges are true it will eventually be quite a significant story. I noticed that going back there was an early attempt to quash the Wikipedia article on Kermit Gosnell and you see what happened there. If Karpen's anywhere near as bad as Gosnell there will eventually be a very permanent Wikipedia article concerning his activities. By the way, just doing a very incomplete Google search I noticed a (London) Daily Telegraph story on Karpen. Is that source presently used in the Wiki article? Badmintonhist (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insights. I agree that the Karpen issue will be resolved if the DA brings charges and there is a trial. Ironically, I doubt they used the same logic in the Zimmerman case since it played into their politics. The Daily Telegraph source was not part of the Karpen article. It's presently frozen since the article is up for deletion -- prior to that, I added four sources that were immediately reverted (Washington Times, Dallas Morning News, The National Review, and The New American). Lordvolton (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fighting the good fight

You did well, kiddo. And because of that I'll tell you a couple of absolutely factual Roscelese anecdotes, giving her credit where credit is due, to give you an even clearer idea of the lady. A couple of years ago she was doing a Wiki bio of an abortion performing doctor named Susan Wicklund. To make the prose slightly less worshipful of her subject I helped her with it and we actually worked fairly well together (despite her occasional snide remarks). The moment that stands out in my mind, however, is finally convincing her NOT to use the fundraising flyer of a group that wanted to build an abortion clinic in some Great Plains state as a "reliable source" for the bio. The flyer had described the behavior of the clinic's opponents in a negative way, of course, and Roscelese had originally used it to make "statements of fact" about their dastardly deeds. To be fair, she had found the words of the flyer in a column appearing in the strongly left-leaning Nation magazine (a highly suspect source for "facts" to start with) and said she thought that they were the writer's words rather than merely the flyer's. Compare a fundraising flyer as a "reliable source" to the kinds of sources that you've seen her reject recently and you get an idea of . . . well let's just say that you get the idea.

The other revealing moment came when she and her frequent ally Binksternet were working on the article

Pro-life feminism. For some reason, perhaps because it's the odd pro-life country in Western Europe, they were dealing with pro-life feminism in Ireland. I noticed something strange right off bat when I saw a statement in the article to the effect that "Irish pro-life feminists stay out of politics." The idea being that they talked the talk but didn't walk the walk; their anti-abortion sentiments being expressed more or less ethereally. I was (and am) no expert on the subject but it just didn't ring true to me, not with the legality/illegality of abortion in Ireland being a pretty hot political topic in recent years. I soon found that they based this supposed "fact" on the word of ONE academic. SHE had said so and that was good enough for them, and they would not even include this "fact" as an indirect statement in the article with something like "according to feminist historian Mary McCarthy, Irish pro-life feminists stay out of the political fray." NOPE, it had to be stated directly in Wikipedia's voice. Bad as I am with doing research on-line, I fairly quickly managed to find two newspaper columns by the only Irish pro-life feminist mentioned by name in the Wiki article which utterly contradicted what Bink and Rosy were insisting was incontrovertible fact. They finally relented and agreed that the statement should be removed, but here's the kicker: Roscelese then tells me, I kid you not, that those newspaper columns hadn't surprised her at all! Kinda like she had been expecting someone to find them all along but until that time she wanted Wikipedia to say, in no uncertain terms, that pro-life feminists in the Emerald Isle were apolitical. Ahh . . . it's cathartic. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the kind words. I hope that she realizes my goal is to reaffirm the importance of being cordial and open to discourse. The minute that breaks down we're forced to take it before a tribunal which is a big investment of time and energy, and not always productive. I'd prefer to work with editors in a fashion that respects their time and effort. I think part of the problem may be assumptions that editors make about each other. Not everyone who makes a change to an article has a personal vendetta. I try to assume good faith on the part of editors making changes that I find problematic ... and sometimes it's a matter of getting an explanation before I can help them reach their goal. When there is no discourse and the edits are unilateral then the results are usually combative. And then editing on Wikipedia becomes a burden rather than a joy. Very few people exposed to that will want to continue editing which makes the encyclopedia suffer. And so, the best path is for people with diverging views to find ways to work together. I'm glad to hear that you and Roscelese have been able to work together peacefully in the past, hopefully we'll see more of that in the future! Lordvolton (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way

I'm hoping your sudden popping up at a bunch of articles I edit is just coincidence. If it is, I suggest that you find other things to be interested in, because you wouldn't want your behavior to appear suspicious. If not, I recommend that you stop using my edit history as your source of inspiration. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You would be well advised to learn how to work amicably with others who are trying to improve articles, rather than assuming you're being persecuted. I actually want good things for you and I hope that through your interactions with other editors on Wikipedia you will learn that it's far more enjoyable to be collaborative and have a spirit of unity -- versus the alternative where you're constantly defending your edits due to perceptions of editorial bias. Lordvolton (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • So that's a "no, I'm hounding you," then. Just to be clear. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not what I said. Please try to avoid creating imaginary quotes and attribute them to me. That's very combative. Lordvolton (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you just happen to be editing exclusively the same articles that I do? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm starting to get the impression that you don't want me to edit any articles you've edited? You've edited articles I've edited in the past and I didn't come to your page and make accusations of "hounding". You've even visited articles that I made mention of in the past and edited them. I didn't assume a conspiracy and begin reverting all of your edits -- as you've been doing to me to the point of preventing me from editing altogether. You need to learn how to collaborate and be cordial. My efforts to improve the articles are in good faith, whereas you're doggedly protecting your POV irrespective of what your sources actually say or the truth. And that's very sad. Lordvolton (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me make my earlier warning a little less circuitous: Stop hounding me, or I will report you at ANI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not hounding you. You're on my talk page remember. In fact, you're reverting me repeatedly. If anyone should be complaining it should be me. I'm simply trying to improve an article. I don't have anything against you personally. I'm providing logical reasons for my changes. You're writing POV material without any source material to back up your position, or you're leaving out material that says the exact opposite. That's simply misleading the readers to support your POV. There is no need to continue this dialogue if all you're going to do is threaten me and act abusively toward me. Let's try to work together peacefully and cordially. Thank you. Lordvolton (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EDITORIAL BIAS

After inquiring about the intent of Roscelese’s recent article deletions on her talk page user Tparis intervened and challenged me to conduct some research to determine if there was a history of Roscelese failing to impose the same standard on LGBT articles.

preliminary findings

First I had to ascertain the standard that Roscelese applies to pro life articles and articles of organizations that do not affirm homosexuality which can be summed up as follows, “The article listed below does not have significant coverage in reliable sources needed to illustrate required notability under

WP:ORG

. The article has almost no citations, or none to reliable sources, and are replete with promotional language.”

Source: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_August_29#Family_Life_International_.28New_Zealand.29

the findings

Next, I had to locate a list of LGBT articles, which are found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_rights_organizations

To establish whether a clear case of editorial bias existed I then had to review the LGBT articles to determine whether: 1) Roscelese had nominated any of them for deletion, and 2) determine if they met Roscelese’s criteria for deletion.

To my surprise many of LGBT articles fall within Roscelese’s standard for deletion. And to my great disappointment she had indeed edited some of them and failed to nominate them for deletion indicating a high potential for editorial bias.

Here is a list of the LGBT articles that meet the standard for deletion w/ commentary beneath relevant articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lesbian_%26_Gay_Foundation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OutFront_Minnesota

• In 2012 Roscelese stated, “(I'm seeing enough GNews coverage to make it worth an AfD - might still turn out to be trivial, but PROD isn't suitable here)." However, she DID NOT nominate the article for deletion despite acknowledging it was “worth an AfD”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_Danmark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Rose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HORIZONS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender/Sexuality_Rights_Association_Taiwan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Gay_Youth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meem_%28group%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Diamond_Society

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Lesbian_and_Gay_Archives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_Activist_Lesbians_Australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Action_Against_Homophobia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILGA-Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_Network

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGO_Gemini

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexualit%C3%A9s_et_Socialisme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-LGBT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOS_Homophobie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSVD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samt%C3%B6kin_%2778

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_Homosexual_Law_Reform

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcigay

• On December 10th, 2010 Roscelese edited Arcigay article and noted that it was NOT referenced. Again failing to nominate the article for deletion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COC_Nederland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_Against_Homophobia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accept_%28organization%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_An_Angel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outright_Scotland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Federation_for_Lesbian,_Gay,_Bisexual_and_Transgender_Rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAOS_GL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEGATO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_and_Lesbian_Youth_Northern_Ireland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_and_Lesbian_Humanist_Association

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_Law_Reform_Society

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Alliance_of_The_Bahamas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_and_Gay_Community_Appeal_Foundation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation:_Gay_%26_Lesbian_Mormons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audre_Lorde_Project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BiNet_USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DignityUSA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_California

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_By_Me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_and_Lesbian_Medical_Association

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay,_Lesbian_and_Straight_Education_Network

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IntegrityUSA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Foundation_for_Gender_Education

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_Equality_Coalition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Coalition_for_Trans_Equality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MassEquality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gay_%26_Lesbian_Chamber_of_Commerce

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gay_and_Lesbian_Task_Force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Advocacy_Coalition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Conference_of_Homophile_Organizations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Health_Initiative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Pride_Center

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grupo_Gay_da_Bahia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundaci%C3%B3n_Ecuatoriana_Equidad

Note: I got tired of reading all of the edit histories after I found two examples.

conclusion

For persistent editorial bias against pro lifers and especially Catholics I believe Roscelese needs a hug and to be reminded that even if we realize what she’s up to – she is still loved.

due diligence

In coming to my conclusion I reviewed many of the articles Roscelese nominated for deletion, including: Family Life International of New Zealand, Virginia Society of Human Life, Natural Marriage, Douglas Karpen , and others. I also reviewed articles where she voiced a strong opinion to delete such as Rachel’s Vineyard, female privilege, and others. I also reviewed LGBT articles that she defended and voted to keep or redirect such as Homophobia in the Black Community, War on Women, and International, Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, Udaan Trust, The Sisters of Mercy, and Queer Youth Student Organization, and others.

IGLYO is particularly interesting since there is not a single citation supporting the article, and yet Roscelese wrote, “Keep. Frivolous, POV-motivated nomination of subject with dozens of reliable sources to be found. User appears to have mass-nominated a number of LGBT-related articles for deletion, and these blatant WP:BEFORE failures call all the nominations into question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That was written in February 2012 and none of the editors voting to keep this unsourced article had the time to add a single citation? I thought there were “dozens to be found”? Yikes.

Ironically the nominator was reprimanded for nominating this article, which to this day lacks any citation to sources, “Keep - clearly notable and nomination seems to be a bad-faith attempt to remove articles on GLBT issues. Nominator is now indef blocked for bad faith noms including this one, so I think this can be speedily kept. - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)”

The irony of user Ahunt handing out reprimands for “bad faith attempt to remove articles” is duly noted. It would appear there is a different standard for LGBT POV editors versus heterosexual POV editors. Until now they’ve been given a free pass without any hugs, but the minute a Wikipedia editor attempts to apply the same rules to LGBT articles they’re indefinitely blocked – no hugs!

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Lesbian,_Gay,_Bisexual,_Transgender_and_Queer_Youth_and_Student_Organisation

He was banned for intentionally deleting LGBT articles. Why would someone intentionally target LGBT articles for deletion? It’s probably for the same reason LGBT editors target pro life and Catholic articles for deletion. They’ve been hurt and they act out online. And that reinforces a lot of the unfair stereotypes.

Another interesting example is the Sisters of Mercy article that paints the Catholic Church in a bad light. I’m not Catholic so I don’t have a dog in that fight, but here is what she said:

“I don't see that the nominator or other users supporting deletion are making arguments that connect in any way to the article in question. The nominator states that there were no charges, but the sources clearly state that the order was not only charged but found guilty. If the title is a problem, deal with it by moving, not by deleting. Absent any argument for deletion, keep. (This may also be a helpful source.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Just to clarify, the Order was never charged. An ex-member was, although I gather she was a member at the time of the alleged rape. The only other case previously covered in the article didn't result in any charges. Anyway, I didn't word the nomination well. The main issue is that there is nothing to suggest that there was a scandal in the Sisters of Mercy per se. Instead there was an incident involving an ex-member who appears to have been falsely accused of and convicted of rape before the conviction was quashed. This is covered at Nora Wall. Otherwise, there is nothing to indicate any sot of scandal for the group as a whole. Thus the topic appears not to be notable. The soruce you indicate does raise issues, but again it isn't clear that this shows a larger scandal. Part of the problem is that these articles were often created by synthesis, by merging isolated abuse cases in various articles into an "Abuse scandal in the ..." article, without evidence that the isolated cases relate to a larger scandal." - Bilby (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)”

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abuse_scandal_in_the_Sisters_of_Mercy

Roscelese’s desire to keep the The Sisters of Mercy article is surprising since according to user Bilby no charges were ever brought. In a role reversal she campaigned for deletion of the Douglas Karpen article using the exact same logic, “Delete. At this point, these are only unsubstantiated allegations with little coverage in reliable sources. If there turns out to be a notable crime, it's possible that the article could be recreated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Karpen

I could look at this evidence and campaign for an indefinite topic block, but I’d much rather collaborate with Roscelese. I spend time editing articles on Wikipedia because it’s fun. I’m not here to persecute people or to allow others to be persecuted unjustly.

Roscelese, Esoglue, Afterwriting, Black Kite, Techbear, Badmintonhist, Bilby, Tparis, Intermittentgardener, Mastcell, and yours truly have to figure out a way to work together and create articles that are content neutral. I think we can do it.

Or we can be intractable and frustrate each other until we all end up leaving Wikipedia to do something that is more enjoyable. And eventually begin spreading the word that a lot of the articles cannot be trusted due to editorial bias.Lordvolton (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the time and effort you have put into these matters. Although I have only been recently involved in some of these disputes it is very much appreciated. Afterwriting (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also appreciate your efforts here, Lordvolton. However, not being a religious fellow, I wouldn't wait for a Saul on the Road to Damascus moment for our friend. As Jeremiah 13:23 reminds us, "the leopard cannot change its spots." Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll just have to disagree. I have faith that we can work together. When I reach a point where my faith in others fades on Wikipedia... I'll stop editing. A person can live a very different lifestyle from mine and still be rational. I think abortion and homosexuality bring out the emotions in editors and rationality takes a backseat. And some of that is because we treat each other as adversaries. Roscelese isn't my adversary and neither are any of her online friends. Sadly, we all bring our baggage to edits even though we think we're being completely neutral. And it often takes moments like these for us to reflect on whether we're being reasonable or emotional. Lordvolton (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a cursorary glance at this, again, you've taken a small sample of her AfD results, specifically the ones that support your pro-conceived assumptions, and neglected others. For example, you skip that she votes delete on pro choice and pro life topics. You also portray her as a POV editor in the topic of sexuality and feminism but you neglect the majority of AFDs about middle eastern topics. You shouldn't omit details simply because they don't support your viewpoint.--v/r - TP 17:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You specifically requested that I focus on LGBT articles. If she has a pattern of editing LGBT articles that violate her own standards and she did not nominate them for deletion then that's all the evidence we need for my proposed solution to be enforced. I didn't even go through the entire edit history of all the LGBT articles that violate her standards because it was obvious. You my friend are "walking the line" toward some hugs be administered in your direction. I've been told that a new batch of hug reinforcements have already arrived at prejudice prevention headquarters. ;-) Lordvolton (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said you'd have to "spend a significant amount of time reviewing her AFD nominations to find a trend." I never said it was limited to LGBT topics. We don't criticize people for having a point of view, we criticize them for only being here to push their point of view. If you look at her AFD contributions, she spends more time in middle eastern topics than sexuality (didn't account count numbers). Have you read any of the essays on POV pushing? Your faith in working together is admirable, I think the same, but your approach missed the landing. Your question, when brought into focus through the lens of your own intentions, is pretty accusatory.

WP:AGF only goes so far.--v/r - TP 19:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I know it can be difficult to remember exactly what was said when operating from memory. Before I started reviewing Roscelese's edit history in greater detail at your suggestion I had confused some of her votes to "delete" articles that didn't square with her POV and some of her nominations to delete articles (there are a lot of them) -- it's a minor point, but our "memory" can fail us. I forget peoples names all of the time. I once forgot the name of a guy who has my name! Talk about embarrassing. Here is what you also said to me, "Then you'll have to go through each pro-LGBT article she's touched and determine if she deliberately ignored some of those articles that fell afoul of the same criteria she has nominated others for." - TParis

I did exactly what you asked. And I stopped reading the edit histories after I came up with two examples from the list. There are probably more. Does she exhibit a double standard? Answer: yes. I listed two LGBT articles that meet her standard for deletion that she personally edited and she even noted that they were lacking and yet she did not nominate them for deletion. Meanwhile, she is campaigning for the deletion of pro life articles and other articles that do not comport with her POV. Why doesn't she delete LGBT articles? Only she can tell you the answer. Why does she have a vendetta against pro life articles and crises pregnancy centers? Only she can answer that question.

I think she is capable of being reasonable, but so far she's demonstrated an inability to objectively edit articles related to homosexuality and abortion. As you noted, she edits other articles and I don't think there is as much contention. Lordvolton (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is terrible too. The great thing about Wikipedia, though, is that you don't have to rely on your memory. Everything anyone has said on this site, ever, is recorded and publicly available. It's wise to invest the time verifying the basis for your accusations before making them. That way you can avoid looking silly. Also, sometimes you learn something. There have been times when I've been convinced that an editor is up to no good based on my memory of their contributions, but then when I go to verify my assumptions, I find out that I was totally wrong about them.

If your case is built around Roscelese's failure to nominate specific articles for deletion, then you may as well drop it now and save yourself and everyone else a lot of time. No one will ever be sanctioned for failing to nominate an article for deletion. Never. There is no obligation for any editor to nominate articles for deletion. If your point is that Roscelese has a "double standard" for how she opines at AfD, then that's different... but even then, most Wikipedians are inconsistent in their AfD !votes. If it were a crime to have inconsistent standards at AfD, you'd need to sanction the majority of Wikipedians. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting I look silly? Like am I comedian? Do I amuse you? Am a clown? Sorry had to do it. If any of you haven't watched the movie Goodfellas then what I just wrote will be extremely confusing.

There isn't a case. I'm not trying to get Roscelese sanctioned. TParis asked me to see if she had a double standard when it came to LGBT articles. And it turns out that she does have a double standard. She also displays ownership of articles related to homosexuality and abortion. My hope is that she will reflect on whether we're all just insane Wikipedian editors out to get her or if perhaps there is a grain of truth to what we're saying. And then hopefully she will decide that we can all work together cordially. I think we're a long way from that point, but it starts with investing time and showing her that it's not just he said, she said. As you point out, Wikipedia records it all so that we can review it. As I mentioned to TParis, she is capable of being a reasonable editor -- but on certain topics objectivity eludes her. Lordvolton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may butt in here, you're wrong about that, TParis. Having a wide variety of interests on Wikipedia doesn't excuse an editor for being a decidedly tendentious POV pusher on only one or just a few of them. One could be the most fair minded editor in the world when writing about operatic singers but that wouldn't exempt him/her from criticism for POV pushing on the subject of US foreign policy. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter what you think, it matters what you can get across ANI and I've told you how ANI has consistently opined on these sorts of issues.--v/r - TP 21:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI won't work. Black Kite just banned someone for complaining about her edits. That only encourages her. I believe the reason was for "edit warring". That's amusing since she reverts me repeatedly on

The bible and homosexuality

, although I'm trying to collaborate with her (see talk page of the article). There are a host of reasons why certain editors protect her and that's a whole topic unto itself. Friendships or lifestyle choices that are in common can sometimes blind people to abusive behavior. It also won't stop her... as long as she feels persecuted then she will probably feel justified in her biased edits and article deletions. The minute editors form tribes on Wikipedia nothing good comes of it. I personally don't care if people are Catholic, Christian, Athiest, Gay, or Straight. However, I do expect all Wikipedia editors to write neutral articles irrespective of their differing lifestyles.

On a sidenote, this has been going on since 2010. Andy Walsh left a message on her talk page under the heading Pro Life v. Anti-abortion, "Just a word of advice: I would stop the rampage before you really stir up some hornets' nests. There is no consensus for such a wide-spread change. Additionally, marking your edits as "minor" is an abuse of the feature. The "minor" designation is for non-controversial, trivial changes—something your edits certainly are not. Please stop. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)"

A three year rampage shows commitment if nothing else! =-) Lordvolton (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this crusade tells far more about you than it does about me, Lordvolton. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it says much about either of us. We don't know each other. All I know about you is what little can be gleaned from your edits and commentary. I don't assume you're a bad person because you have a double standard when it comes to LGBT articles and you have an axe to grind with pro lifers and Catholics with whom you disagree. There is a reason you want to to eliminate articles that view abortion in a dim light. And there is a reason you take issue with Catholics. And you've decided to use Wikipedia to communicate that angst.

I'm here to help you. Yes, the Wikipedia editor that you secretly believe is harboring ill will toward you.

My goal, as it is for everyone, is to help you collaborate on articles with other editors that may or may not share your worldview. A painful first step is for you to carefully reflect on your behavior since 2010 when your campaign to defend a POV began. It's not healthy for you -- and it's not healthy for the editors that have to find ways to interact with you. My initial reaction to you mirrored a lot of their reactions -- very negative.

Some of them don't believe you're capable of change, but none of us know you. And it's not fair to assume the worst about someone when we have so little information upon which to base a judgement. Anyone can change. And I think all of us should want to make changes that will bring smiles to other people's faces rather than frowns.

There have been a lot of frowns to go around. I'm a poet and I know it! But that doesn't mean we have to continue acting like we're adversaries. I know you're capable of being reasonable and working peacefully with other editors... all we have to do is figure out if there is a way for you to treat all articles like that... to treat all articles like you want LGBT articles to be treated. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

When articles that are barely sourced in the LGBT list were nominated for deletion you rose up and fought for them to be preserved. And that's what other people do on articles that they think are important. That's why I don't mistreat editors by using the "nomination for deletion" as a weapon to hurt those who self identify with certain articles. For example, I could have nominated the majority of the articles you think are important for deletion based on your own criteria, but that would have been wrong. My job isn't to persecute homosexuals on Wikipedia and target them because a single member of their community has been intolerant and insensitive. Tit for tat would only results in more articles being deleted when they rightfully feel wronged by those disruptive actions and retaliate.

A better path is forgiveness. Everyone has done and said things that were not constructive. If we can all forgive each other it will be easier to then focus on how we're going to treat each other with kindness in the future. If I've wronged you or made you feel anything but loved, I am sorry. I'm not a Catholic or even a Christian ... but I know that God loves every single editor involved in this discussion. And God can reach people and change their lives in unexpected places -- even on Wikipedia.

Let's find a way to work together. =-) Lordvolton (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of Wikihounding another Editor, why not put your energies into constructive work like writing or reviewing articles, correcting vandalism, becoming a Wikignome and helping the encyclopedia improve? That's why we're here, to build up Wikipedia not investigate its Editors. If you have proof of wrongdoing, make your case at AN/I, if not, then move on and write and edit!! Make a contribution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If someone went over my Edit History with a fine-tooth comb, looking for evidence that I was pushing a POV or had a COI, the last thing I'd want to do is collaborate with that Editor. I don't understand how you can not see your behavior as stalking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thanks for your comments. Although it probably doesn't seem like it to you, my goal is to improve Wikipedia. My goal isn't to investigate editors, but sometimes I have to do things I don't enjoy to improve Wikipedia. Another editor challenged me to see if there was evidence of bias in selecting articles to delete. It turns out that there was evidence of selection bias and rather than return the favor by nominating LGBT articles for deletion that failed to meet the same criteria (which would have been wrong and punished innocent third parties) -- I suggested forgiveness. I think certain topics can be very emotional and sometimes we become blind to our own biases. I'm certainly no exception, but often the people who feel like they're being hounded (and perhaps they have been in the past) wrongly assume that every person who disagrees with them is picking a fight.

Let's not forget that the people who "hound" others have usually been wronged in their mind. Normally it's an insensitive edit or failure to communicate. Editors invest days, weeks, and months improving articles and when they feel like their time and effort aren't being respected they don't always react calmly. And sometimes the person who is acting insensitively believes they're behaving perfectly rationally. Since this is all happening electronically it can be very difficult to unravel emotions and feelings when editing articles until the expletives start flying -- and by then it's often too late to work collaboratively. In this instance I think we'll be able to work together since I don't have anything against her personally and more recently we've been having productive conversations.

None of us can change how we made other people feel in the past -- but fortunately we change how we are going to make them feel today and tomorrow. And that's why loving each other rather than hating each other is the better path. It's hard to hate people who love you. ;-) Lordvolton (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3O?

I removed from my Talk page your implicit request for help, because I don't want to return immediately to the page where you are trying to get a more intelligible conversation going for its improvement. Your request has slightly unsettled my resolve to delay my returning, but not enough for action. I will just say that you might like to read

WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Be aware that, if there is no other way to make progress and you decide to try one of the suggestions given, there is no certainty that whoever that might bring in will really be free from prejudice. Esoglou (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello, Lordvolton. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lordvolton. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hutton's Paradox

I see that you have removed the section on Hutton's paradox from the Dream argument article on the ground that the paradox is "non-notable." May I refer you to a post of mine, dated 16 February 2018, on that article's talk page (written under my former username, Alderbourne), in which I make a case for its being notable? Incidentally, a Google search for it currently returns almost 4,000 hits. Admittedly, some of these are Wikipedia mirrors and some refer to a rock band (named after the paradox, I might add) or to what Stephen Jay Gould called James Hutton's "paradox of the soil." Even so, you cannot deny that it has attracted a fair amount of comment.

I am going to restore the section and would be grateful if you would respect my decision. If, however, you still believe the paradox is "non-notable," may I suggest you refer this matter to a Wikipedia administrator rather than remove the section again on your own initiative?

Eric Bond Hutton (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a third party opinion. We can also get the community's opinion. Please read my comments in the talk section regarding my thoughts on its suitability. Lordvolton (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lordvolton&oldid=1084050875"