User talk:Benjamin Gatti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Peak oil theory

I saw your change to peak oil theory, and while, as you say, "Peak oil is the general theory - Hubbert's theory is his own work", I don't understand why you copied the contents of Hubbert peak theory into the article. I have restored the redirect. If you want to contribute a new article on peak oil theory that is different from Hubbert peak theory, I'm all for it, but I don't find the duplication really useful. --timc | Talk 03:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that the current article contains both the general and the specific theory - My intent would have been to excise the Hubbert specific paragraphs - but see Talk:Hubberts peak oil theres a consensus afoot to accomplish this, so 'i've let that run its course - let's see where we are in a few. Benjamin Gatti

Hi Benjamin. I felt I should drop you a note personality to explain why I reverted your edit to Hubbert peak theory; I see you've been through a similar discussion before. I understand where you're coming from; when I first got here, the article was just called "Hubbert peak"—I really wanted to restrict it to just Hubbert's work and make a new page for "Peak oil". A arguably disruptive user preventive any move at the time, and since then the compromise of "Hubbert peak theory" has been reached. As Timc says above, there's no problem with splitting the article into two, but it's such a heavily edited article that it might be best to find a consensus on the talk page before going ahead with it.

On a different note, I noticed on your user page that you're interested in renewable technologies. One of my pet projects of late has been working on launching a sustainable technologies wikiproject. I've yet to get enough support to make it worthwhile, but check it out if you think you might be interested.—JwandersTalk 21:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush

I'd be surprised if the most notable thing about him was 'he enjoys golf'. That edit was highly POV as you probably know, and please don't repeat it :) Thanks. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It does appear to be his strong suit, and he appears to prefer playing golf to leading the nation in times of crisis - his other job. I think the Edit is accurate, factual and neutral. His commitment to golf is second to nothing - including his county in its time of need. Benjamin Gatti

Wikipedia is not a soapbox--Rogerd 04:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Facts are not soap. Benjamin Gatti
Opinions don't become facts just because you label them that way. DreamGuy 08:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

you need to stop vandalising the George W. Bush article. wikipedia is not a soapbox. your edits are clearly POV and youredits have been reverted.167.206.128.33

[edit] Michael Chertoff

Yeah, he's an incompetent fucker. But show that with facts, not POV statements. I've reverted your edits. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV. Thank you. Postdlf 04:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Scarborough quote on George W. Bush

Hi Benjamin. I believe that the quote by Joe Scarborough would be much more appropriate on a Hurricane Katrina article. At a minimum, it isn't appropriate for the introduction of the Bush article since it's such a specific detail. Carbonite | Talk 17:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV hurts

Please stop vandalising the articles for Michael D. Brown and FEMA. The truth is the worst thing you could say about that guy and putting in blatant POV just wastes other editors' time. Eliot 21:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Given that the english language lacks perjoratives capable of adequately describing Michael D. Brown, I can hardly see how vandalism could occur on that page. Even blanking could be described as an oriental form of appropriate sanctions. You are eroding the term vandalism by applying it to the expression of fact-based convictions. Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Please stop polluting Wikipedia with POV

You have done serious damage to the Looting article by rewriting it according to your POV. While I can sympathize with it and while there were interesting observations that can somehow find a place in the article, you can't pollute a technical encyclopaedia article with (partially right IMHO, but that's not the point) propaganda. Thank you. Cyclopia 12:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The prior state in which "looting" is renamed "stealing" with images of Africans distributing stores of food to starving villagers was perverse and a POV shared only by the most ignorant, self-righteous, and ironcally members of groups which have most benefitted by the "looting" of Africa for free labor. If you wish to engage in a dialogue to find a workable neutral ground - you would do more good to edit first and criticize last. Benjamin Gatti
I edit first because one of Wikipedia main strengths is its struggle for NPOV. Your statements can contain useful informations, but they're a quite particular POV. What it should be done is to present facts according to common definitions (and by common definitions, looting is technically theft, somehow). If you feel there's another POV worth to be presented, you can add a section of the article and expose this POV by writing "By some looting is considered..." with clear external references and so on, and stating cleary this is just a (respectable) POV, not dogma.
If you don't agree with Wikipedia NPOV policy, you can consider joining Wikinfo. Wikinfo's policy on point of view is different from Wikipedia: rather than adopting a neutral point of view, the set of articles about a particular topic are split into a number of articles with a specified point of view—thus it tries to have several points of view on each topic. The main article is written from a sympathetic point of view which is described as "a way of encouraging a pluralism of content, rather than limiting content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal."

Cyclopia 13:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are simply out of touch with reality. MSNBC has gathered a plurality of experts on ethics to discuss this issue, and not one of them has asserted that "looting" is one and the same as theft. It is always the suspension of commerce denominated in liquid currency, it can be done morally or immorally - and in this respect has much in common with other forms of redistribution. capitalism, communism, and totalitarianism all have a range of moral implications - and should probably be judged on a case-by-case basis where a moral determination is to be made. Theft is no such animal. theft is a perjorative term exclusively used to prejudice a transaction as violate. Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Looting

Benjamin, I've reported you for a violation of 3RR. Not only have you violated 3RR, but your additions have been rejected by three editors (so far), meaning you're also violating consensus. Please stop. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:53, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if I violated 3RR - but if i did , then i deserve the consequences. In the meantime consensus, when it rejects cited alternative facts which are relevent without discussion is not inspiring. I wish the other editors would back up the baloney they are protecting with citations. To the extent that has not happened, editing has not been in good faith. IMO. good luck on your 3RR. Benjamin Gatti
I reviewed it and it doesn't look like you have violated 3RR... the report was rather confusing as Katefan0 listed on of his/her reverts as one towards your 3RR... anyways, just saying that you haven't done anything wrong though try not to engage in edit wars... as a general rule of thumb, use the one revert rule. Sasquatcht|c

[edit] POV

I've blocked you for 24 hours for persistently inserting non-neutral language into articles. Please use this time off to read WP:NPOV; you're welcome to continue editing after the block expires provided you abide by the NPOV policy. --fvw* 04:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Price-Anderson Mediation

Thanks for your request for mediation. I will be taking the case. See Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. Ral315 WS 03:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accidents and Chernobyl

Hey there - on Sept 3 you placed a paragraph on the Accident article essentially arguing that Chernobyl wasn't an accident (but an 'incident'). I have removed this paragraph as I think it is very clear that Chernobyl was an accident as defined in the article. I felt it fair to let you know about that. Now I have just noticed in the Nuclear Power article that you refer on Sept 1 to "a sever nuclear accident such as occurred at Chernobyl." Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Two days and an accident becomes a non-accident "incident"? Ppe42 05:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that what occurred at Chernobyl was not an accident - as in an unforeseeable result driven by random inconsistency between engineering expectations and reality. It was in fact the predicted result of the actions taken, which is why the rules specifically indicated that those actions were impermissible. Benjamin Gatti

An accident is defined as something going wrong unexpectedly, where the event was unforeseeable or very unlikely. Given perfect information, the Chernobyl operators might have foreseen or expected things to go terribly wrong. However, they lacked engineering knowledge of the reactor's design flaws (possibly because said flaws were covered up). There are several reasons why everything went wrong; but the sum total is that the experiment was designed to increase the safety of the reactor (by improving the safety systems). The operators did not expect things to go wrong in the way they did, and therefore it was an accident. This is consensus: the article is labelled Chernobyl Accident and described as the most important example of a nuclear accident. Ppe42 02:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As if by an overwhelming majority, the editors of wikipedia could declare that the moon is made of cheese. Consensus - in itself - is unpersuasive. The facts uncontested are that the rules required a given number of control rods remain out at all times, and in short that while they did not foresee the effect of breaking the rules, they did in fact foresee that their actions were a violation of the rules. Further that had they followed the rules (as they both knew and understood them), the incident would not have happened. Anyone who builds a nuclear reactor must understand that everything can go very wrong. A nuclear reactor is an atom bomb balanced precariously between doing nothing, and taking out an entire city. Children at age 8 understand this. The idea that reactor operators are unaware of the game they are playing is fanciful at best. In reality, Chernobyl was the intrusion of the politically powerful into the sanctity of the scientifically informed. The Operators were aware of the danger, but overruled by ambitious political superiors. Such is not an accident. Benjamin Gatti
I think you overstate the case, my friend. The vast majority of nuclear reactor designs are utterly incapable of producing a thermonuclear explosion; at most, a core meltdown and steam explosion could cause the leakage of some radioactive material. The idea of nuclear reactors suddenly, disastrously exploding and "taking out an entire city" may indeed be believable to an eight year old, but you are a grown man. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about what constitutes an accident. Ppe42 04:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
in 1987, 1200 people lived in Chernobyl, today all residents have been evacuated. Just explain this. Why is in impossible for all the insurance companies in the world to privately insure even a single nuclear plant? - That is the argument behind the Price Anderson suspension of liability protections. If you really believe tat nuclear energy is safe - tell me were I can purchase adequate private insurance to operate a nuclear plant. I'll wait. My children will wait, and their great grandchildren will wait ...

Benjamin Gatti

Insurance costs is (cost of accident)*(possibility of accident). The reason for insurance is that the insurance is affordable while the accident, would it happen immediately, is not. At the time, insurance companies wouldn't be able to cover these costs either, thus they were legally prohibited to insure the accident. Another reason could be they were not competent to evaluate neither possibility or cost of extreme accidents. Thus the state took responsibility for the insurance costs. The insurance fee would actually be very low, had the US chosen to collect it. In other countries, the state DO require insurance payment.--Sinus 10:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The State doesn't "take" responsibility - it "transfers" responsibility to the taxpayers. - that is a mandated imposition of risk. I'm not sure the state has any business imposing the risk of bad actors on the general public. the risk of individual - profit-motivated corporations should be borne by the profiteers. Benjamin Gatti
Bad writing of mine. What I intended to write was "Thus the state assumed the responsibility to insure for the utilities regarding accident costs above ~$10 billion". The remainder stays the same. The state insures the company, because the insurance companies cannot. My own country, Sweden, imposes a nuclear tax as payment for this service, and so could (should) the USA.--Sinus 21:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The meaning is the same. If we have the state insuring everything - then we have taxpayers paying for all sorts of risk, and in the end, we really have nothing more complicated than communism. Benjamin Gatti 22:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The RfC about you

Please wait until it goes live. And the filings of 2 RfCs by you is going to be used as evidence of disruptive behavior. You aren't helping yourself here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not an official RfC though. Doesn't matter. We're going to develop it behind the scenes (and there is no policy against it) and then post it. That's how most people do it. So vandalize away. You are just hurting yourself. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Any page which the public can view which incorporates my name personally is open for rebuttal. The right to defend's one's name when referred to by name is absolute. Good luck defending an alternative. Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Zen master

Ben, zen is on probation from arbcom (plus he was banished for a week from the same case). He got nearly blocked for good a couple fo weeks ago for disruption. Dmc and I are just trying to remind him to get up to speed and not to edit war or else he's going to be blocked permanently per the arbcom. That's all it was. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arb

Really Benjamin, it's best that you withdraw your request. It's not the proper venue, I can guarantee you that the arbitrators will reject the request and likely be testy while doing it. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 23:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the best thing for you to do would have been to raise the question on RFPP. You can still do that. And we can have one of the uninvolved admins there like Jossifresco, Tony Sidaway, or Thryduulf look at it. What I don't get is that even if it was an honest misunderstanding on my part, nad there shouldn't have been protection, the answer is to fix that, not arbitration. I'm perplexed by your actions, because I'd like to think that if you had asked me I would have been able to explain myself to your satisfaction. Dmcdevit·t 23:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
This is far more about the idea of Protecting an article in order to effect censorship than it is about any one individuals actions or behavior. This is not the first time the Page was protected without just or given cause, and the issue has already been mediated twice. There really being no further venue, RfArb appears appropriate. Benjamin Gatti 00:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
You said in the arbitration that I knew you disagreed. But, honestly, I didn't and I wonder why you feel that way. If you had left me a note, I would have looked at it again. If you had made a request for unprotection, someone else would have looked at it again. I'm still not clear as to what your objection is. I think it's either that the page was protected on one version and not the other (it is policy to make no preference but to leave it where it was at protection time), that you think there wasn't an edit war going on or not one severe enough to warrant protection, or whether you disagree with the principle of protecting during edit wars? The fact is that page protection is one of the processes I'm most intimately involved in here on Wikipedia, and I take it very seriously. I reject probably 80% of the requests of RFPP, and believe very strongly that protection is harmful. Please help me understand your position. Dmcdevit·t 05:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Dmcdevit, I wonder if you paged through the fifteen edits by six different people on Dec 5 before jumping to the conclusion that an unreasonable edit-war was going on? I wonder if you realize that the only editor involved in unexplained reverts was the same Woohoo who requested the censorship? I wonder if you care about the edit war policy which clearly separates interested parties from users and states only that the later may request protection? There wasn't an edit-war at all, there was a community process of editing an divisive issue. I would suggest that you could name the issues which the Supreme Court has disagreed with the appellate courts on a single hand - this is one of them, and it is unreasonable to presume stability as normative. There are no personal attacks, the debate is wide open and yet both respectful and productive (mediation has not helped much). The arguments are heavily sourced. This is a work in progress, and you have poured cold water on it - at the behest of one of the more opinionated and less informed editors. Benjamin Gatti 05:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunatley, I think you misread the protection policy. It doesn't matter who requests protection, and in fact there doesn't even need to be a request in practice, just admin discretion. It could be a party or an anon, because, the truth is, other than a little background, I don't much care what the requester says, but I go look at the article's recent history myself. This is not "censorship" and that kind of language is just inflammatory. This is just a temporary cool-down, while saying "censorship" implies malice (and asumes bad faith). I did nothing at the behest of anyone, but because of my own determination of edit warring. I counted 15 reverts, not just edits (>20 edits) in 24 hours. I consider that serious enough to warrant protection. If you disagree, please make a ]]WP:RFPP#Current_requests_for_unprotection|request for unprotection]] so we can get a neutral admin to look at it. Dmcdevit·t 06:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Ben, that is not the appropriate place for what you are asking for no matter what you say. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] And btw

The place to ask for unprotection is Wikipedia:Requests for protection. It's not the arbcom page. "Mike, because I am arguing that interested parties should not initiate page protection". Um Ben? That's how almost all requests for protection work. It's almost always someone working on the article who is asking for protection to stop an edit war or vandalism or whatever. I used the correct process to a T. I'm an admin, but instead of protecting it myself, I asked for protection on the requests for protection page. The admins who patrol that page actually turn down more than 50% of the requests. Dmcdevit turns down probably 80%. But he saw a major revert war going on and decided to stop it via protection. What you did was against policy because it belongs on RfP or ANI NOT Arbcom. And I think you knew that but you wanted to stir the pot. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr against Ben is live

Just letting you know that I opened the RfAr on you. Please comment so we can get this case opened ASAP. Comment here. Just so you know Ben, we were planning on doing this on Friday. The only reason I opened it now is because of this request you made on Wednesday. We were going to open it several other times, but we kept trying to work this out, but it's not going to happen. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the arbcom policy on content disputes. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
And btw Ben, I retitled the case again. It is NOT about Price-Anderson. We're not going to call your views on Price-Anderson wrong or incorrect or anything else. That's not the issue here. You're the issue. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps "we're" the issue? There's only one editor insisting on the ad hominem. Perhaps in zeal the willing victimize the weak. Benjamin Gatti 01:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Kate just put up her arguments. This isn't just me Ben. And. It doesn't matter if I invoked Price-Anderson or not. I also invoked Looting and nuclear power and criminalization of politics. This is about you. I'm retitling it to just you one more time. the policy is to name cases by user. Look at the open cases. I think only Regarding Ted Kennedy and a couple of others has an article name in it and those are still user disputes, not content disputes. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I have to know

please tell me that your "Arbcom can't hear this because they don't have original jurisdiction" post was a joke. Thanks. Nandesuka 13:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Btw

4 votes is what is needed to make a case "live" (and we have 4 votes now). It sometimes takes the arbys a couple of days to create the necessary pages. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Benjamin Gatti

And it's going to be named Benjamin Gatti. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Workshop. Fred Bauder 04:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congressman mel price

Image:Congressman mel price.jpg The image that you uploaded of Mel Price...can you tell me where you got it from? You listed it as "PD-self", but that would only apply if you took the photo yourself. Ral315 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a derivitave of Image:Congressman mel price.gif which I have hand painted and composited in Photoshop to an extent which I believe justifyies the PD-self label. Any better ideas? I would have overloaded the original but the extentions don't allow this. Benjamin Gatti 21:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ho Ho Ho to you too

Merry Christmas! --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Um Ben

I suggest you remove the latest piece of "evidence" you put up. I reverted it. Btw, "rolled back undiscussed edits". You put 2 words back in. Give me a break. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we both reverted at the same time - I agree with you here. I'll make a note of it. Benjamin Gatti 22:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh and you cannot mention an edit of Sandpipers as "complainants are inserting factual errors in Wikipedia" on the arbcom case. He's not a complainant. He's not listed as one. He has absolutely 0 connection to Simesa, katefan0 and I. I'm not sure I've even put a message on his talkpage. Maybe I did once. He's independent. Always has been. So. You can't mention an edit of his as a "complainant". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
And actually, I'm not trying to speak for him but I don't think he thinks we should've brought this case in the first place. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I do hear you on that - and yes - I believe that she is far more neutral on this - especially when it comes to skipping RfC and RfM and intruding on the ArbCom. (However there are hundreds of edits made by all preserving the points I contest) Benjamin Gatti 18:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For the comments on User:Fluterst. As I've said before, what amuses me is that I have a liberal type (you) telling me how pro-nuclear I'm making P-A but at the same time I have these conservatives (Fluterst is the latest in a long line that includes BigDaddy777 and Rex) who are convinced that I am part of this liberal cabal trying to "rule" Wikipedia. I'm actually neither. Anyway, this website he sites is full of crap. Completely full of crap. Wikipedia is a completely non profit company (even Jimbo takes no salary) which actually does a good job of keeping crap off of the site given it's open nature. A lawsuit would be pointless. Wikimedia's budget for this year is all of 700 grand and literally all of it goes into infrastructure. It would just be pointless to sue Wikipedia or Wikimedia. Anyway, thanks for the comments. At the moment, I'm trying to avoid all NPOV stuff, so I'm going to leave him alone for now but I have a feeling we'll cross paths soon. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Wikipedia is as worthless as you propose, though in no way does an increase in worth significantly increase its culpability - unless and this is probably where you're going - WP directly benefits from the publishing of BS, and therefore is motivated to encourage its users to contribute BS - neither of which is even remotely the case so far as I know. I hardly think of myself as a liberal - which in the end suggests that such terms may have outlived their utility. Best. Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Advocacy

Sorry, but I don't think I'm qualified for that. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

There are no reactions to other people's evidence allowed on the evidence page. I'd suggest that you move your comments to the evidence analysis section of the Workshop. It's what it's for. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I see several places where you did this. You mention DeeCeeVoice's case, where they did similar things. It doesn't matter. If someone complained about it, the comments would be removed. If you want me to take this up with one of the arbcom members, I will. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This is right from the evidence page: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user." The only reason why it was allowed for DeeCeeVoice is because his arbcom went so fast (less than a week) that no one had time to correct it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Using the example of the DCvoice, I contributed in good faith; I will respect your request by not commenting further in that manner, and if you choose to revert claiming the "rulz" - I will let that stand. How about we call a draw, and strike up a friendship instead - I would imagine we agree on more than we disagree? Benjamin Gatti 07:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I discussed this with arby User:Raul654 on IRC and he said I can move the comments to your section, so that's what I am doing. It's very clear on the evidence page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Everything has been moved. I didn't change anything...just moved things around. I have to pass on the friendship offer. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy

I am willing to help you in your Arb Case if you wish. Just leave me message in my talk space. --Chazz88 14:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC) AMA member.

You got e-mail or an IM? I'm going to ask to postpone decision so I can read through all the information put forward. --Chazz88 16:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Also have you been through negotiation or mentorship to solve these problems and if not were these options ever offered to you? Please leave comments on User talk:Chazz88/Benjamin Gatti --Chazz88 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
What about woohookitty? He/she seems to be the main complainant. --Chazz88 17:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] variant

User Bill of Rights/Radiant! Variant was in the wrong namespace. I have moved it to User:Benjamin Gatti/Variant.

[edit] Holiday wishes

Thank you for your gracious good wishes on my talk page. I'm sorry I was tardy in returning the sentiment, but I hope that your holidays were as joyous and fulfilling as mine. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 16:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom evidence pages

Re: this edit - as it says, clearly and (literally) bolded at the top of the page -- If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user. This is to prevent edit warring and long back-and-forth discussions which produce unreadable, useless evidence pages. Please respect the rules. Raul654 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the DeeCeeVoice case - you'll see it can work. There are better ways to avoid edit wars (like growing up for example) than trying to respond to personal attacks in a parallel universe. The Long established practice for such is to respond to each witness at the end of their evidence. I haven't see a good reason for that recommendation. I think it defies logic and creates an atmosphere in which ridiculous accusations go unanswered - in fact, I reject that format out of hand. (speaking of rules - what about the rule that says one should file an RfC and an RfM before filing an RfArb? - ah I see, shoe on other foot, now rules are made to be broken. We play Nomic here, we make joke. Benjamin Gatti 19:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of my comment. This is not a debate, nor am I asking for your input as to how we should format arbcom evidence pages. I am telling you that if you want that evidence introduced, you will follow the format as we have layed it out, or the evidence you have introduced will be summarily deleted without being considered. Raul654 21:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you also misunderstand. If a person wants to enjoy the privilege of "no response to evidence" than 'that person must confine their rants to evidence and evidence alone - as soon as one inserts conclusorary statements or analysis of the evidence into the evidence section, then in my book, it becomes a legitimate target for response in-line. This isn't negotiable. If the Arb wishes to ban people for defending themselves when and where they are attacked; that is their choice and pleasure - and I would sooner give them that option, than leave conclusory statements undefended. What about that do you fail to understand? If WP is to become a place for taking indefensible pot-shots at individuals, I wish it good day and good riddance. Benjamin Gatti 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
You can copy his comments into your evidence section and reply to them there, if you wish; however, you are not to edit his section, for any reason. Period. Raul654 00:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - but you will agree that an "Evidence" Section ceases to be an "Evidence" section when argument, accusation, or analysis enter the picture. The safe harbor extends only to evidence. Therefore I will as you suggest - respect the sanctity of the sections which contain only evidence. See, that was easy. Benjamin Gatti 03:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Raul. That seems like a reasonable compromise. I will speak to Ben and see if this would satisfy our requirements. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-mails

Ben are you getting my e-mails if so e-mail me back. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 01:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Do not remove other people's comments from talk pages. It is generally considered vandalism. Radiant_>|< 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not Copy people's comments to unique, unsimilar pages - it is plagiarism. Benjamin Gatti 01:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. While commonly thought of as Radiant's attack puppy, please take this as if if were from someone neutral: The RfC is a mess. It doesn't follow the accepted format, it's over a non-issue, and in the current environment people may be terribly uncivil to you for raising it.
The very very best thing would be to remove the link from the main page, put a speedy deletion tag and the top of the RFC itself, and find someone to help talk through this issue. There are tons of nice and helpful people around, eh?
brenneman(t)(c) 01:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ben, there is no defense against removing comments from talk pages. Tread carefully. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you mean no defence for, but I like the mental image your version gives. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The comments you refer to are all well and safe and firmly attached to Wikipedia: User Bill of Rights Where they were made and where they belong - and where I hope they shall stay. Benjamin Gatti 01:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd stop the Wikilawyering. Arbcom frowns on it more than everything else except POV pushing. But hey. You haven't listened to me before, so why start? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm going to coin a law in your honor: Ben's Law: The more a given user accuses others of avoiding the rules by Wikilawyering, the higher the probability that said user is ignoring all rules. Benjamin Gatti 02:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
One day I'll get a direct response from you on something I say. Instead, you respond with a personal attack. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
C'mon, it's not personal. If I kept count of the rules you break, I'd have to take off my shoes. Hint: The next line after the last rule you quoted says "Don't refactor comments - let the Arbcom do it." Benjamin Gatti 03:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Um I did. I went onto IRC and told Raul654 about it and he told me to move the comments and if you didn't like it, I could ask for a block. Ask him yourself. I don't recall you asking the arbcom if you could put the comments in other people's evidence section. And Ben, of course it's personal. You said "I think I'm going to coin a law in your honor". How is that not personal? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Mostly it's not personal because it doesn't include your name. If you want to go write mother goose rhymes which make fun of me - that's not personal unless you use my name. All of the laws at Raul's place are inspired by people's behaviour, in that sense they are all personal, but they are not personal attacks. Notice how seldom I use editor's names when making complaints (read the ArbCom evidence for example.) Note the rules (which you so glibbly ignore, require that you posit and RfC and an RfM before going to Arbom - where is your RfM? - Wikilawyering!. (That's another of Raul's rules by the way). Benjamin Gatti 15:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
From the NPA policy: "Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."". I don't see a specific name said there. To me saying that I am ignoring all rules is a personal attack. It's not like you said all Wikipedia users or all Americans or all people on earth. You specifically referred to me and me alone. And you know what Ben? Apparently the arbcom doesn't agree with you that this arbcom case is invalid or else they wouldn't have taken the case. Can you explain why they took the case if we didn't bring this case correctly? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
And I have used the term "Wikilawyering" in regards to you exactly 5 times in my entire time on Wikipedia. Not sure how this became me using it extensively. The "Wikilawyering" section on the workshop was created by dmc, not by me. The evidence section called Wikilawyering is by radiant!, not me. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
All evidence that the law is not personal. I recognize it's not just you, and your point is not invalid just because it conforms to Ben's law. It is however more humorous. Benjamin Gatti 16:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, the UP is the same page as the UBOR. It has been renamed and rewritten. Check the little comment at the bottom of every edit page that says If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. And do stop wikilawyering, it's not getting you anywhere. Radiant_>|< 10:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record it wasn't the same when I tried to restore coherency to an ungodly mess. I suggest we move on, but I'll be more than happy to defend each and every edit, while I doubt that piling on really serves any purpose. The above line applies to content - the use of signed comments - copied from another page to make a show of consensus where none has been established is beyond irresponsible. Benjamin Gatti 15:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] e-MAIL

Check your e-mail Ben.

--- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 00:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note to Woohookitty

I left a comment there in case you don't have his page on your watchlist. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 23:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

Ben,

I got your message. There are some things I put in my e-mail can you respond please.

Chazz

[edit] Blackmail?

To be clear, I have never accused you of "blackmail." I stated that your statements were "threatening," or something to that effect, (I'm sure there's some kind of important distinction between the two, but at the moment I don't feel like pondering it and "blackmail" is quite a severe word). Truth is, I don't care much whether you reveal the emails (which I've never seen) or not, but what concerns me is that you felt the need to mention it beforehend, especially the "You've still got time" typr of comment. To me, either you should have done it because you felt it was necessary, or not because you felt it was improper, but to do otherwise, to entertain the possibility of either based on a behavior change in Woohookitty, strikes me as unnecessary and even threatening. If you look at my comment though, I didn't say I support the FoF, since I think that was relatively minor. I can also assure you that ArbCom most likely won't touch it either. I've seen you characterize this arbitration as mudslinging, but I want you to know that's not what I, at least, am doing at all. It's understandable that having evidence presented against you is disconcerting, but I think there is genuinely a problem, and, to be sure, none of my comments on that page have ever reached the level of personal comments about you, but commentary on your editing. I don't think it's "mudslinging." In fact, the ultimate irony here, for me, is that we probably have similar real-world POVs (I disdain talking politics on Wikipedia, but let's just say I was a Green party volunteer for the last election, which is not easy in red Arizona), but I'm fairly certain you wouldn't know it by my article edits. Dmcdevit·t 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The decision to go the way of a mud sling has been made by the others. Case in point, pretending that edits were personal attacks when they quite obviously weren't anything of the kind. Yes - I am making an effort to correct a systemic bias in favor of false statements regarding renewable energy, but in Peak oil my edits would be interpreted as correcting an opposite bias - by arguing that nuclear power could lessen the impact of less cheap oil (much as I would hope for a cleaner option). Giving the opposition time to avoid a mud sling by refusing to throw mud, even when you could, is not a threat. Someday you will have the experience to understand this - I promise you that. In the meantime, be more cautious about making unfounded accusations. Benjamin Gatti 08:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested which "unfounded accusations" you are talking about. I will WP:AGF and assume that that was not your intention, however, the way you said gave the distinct impression that you were threatening others to discontinue the arbitration committee, or you would try to tarnish their good reputation. I fail to see the amount of mudslinging you are talking about, as my point was that presenting evidence is not mudslinging, even if it is painful to see. Dmcdevit·t 10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
A mudsling is just that - a prurient exercise in mutual tarnishing - my offer was an invitation to deescalate the personal horsepucky and focus on the meaningful differences. It was a stick and carrot offer, and perfectly fair. You should notice that I stayed out of the personal mudslinging. I in fact threw no mud whatsoever. And I had enough mud to get the complainant de-admined. I have no interest in such. I am however interested in the content dispute - and while I was uninviting Mike from the mudsling, I was in no way asking him not to participate - only to channel his participation on the subject matter rather than the personal. Your failure to separate the two draws into some question your ability to follow a mature dialogue, so I'll leave it at that. Benjamin Gatti 02:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tomorrow, maybe

Howdy, had little access to internet this weekend, plus was overwhelmed then and today. Will respond shortly. Didn't want you to think I blew you off. Haven't even read about First Energy indictments yet. Do note that companies with just a couple of units (with the exception of Arizona Power) don't tend to be able to cut it in the nuclear business. Simesa 21:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - well it has been predicted by the application of simple game theory to the free-ridership vulnerabilities created by Price Anderson. I suggest that direct damages alone are not enough to ensure the safety of nuclear plants - we need catastrophic liability just to keep the investors engaged in ensuring the safety precautions are maintained IMHO. Benjamin Gatti 02:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
don't precisely know what you two are talking about, but the whole point is that individuals do not consider that taking high theortetical risk actions is justified for themselves, but nations do. So nations have to take on that risk to encourage individuals to participate. Sandpiper 13:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Sand, we're discussing the recent indictment of several nuclear energy personell for falsifying safety reports and in other ways placing the public at risk. The whole point that nations take on risks is fine, but my whole point is that free markets don't choose winners - dictatorships do. Benjamin Gatti 14:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tobacco

So Tobacco is more dangerous than uranium???Sandpiper 00:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If that's a question than - yes, empirically, Tobacco is the single largest cause of death (400K per year US) car and guns are (~50K per year US) Benjamin Gatti 03:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
all an issue of small probablilty big risks, and big probability small risks, and how to compare them, then. Sandpiper 13:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power laundering

Hello, Benjamin. Your userpage says that you started an article called Power laundering. The article has apparently been removed. Could you please tell me what power laundering is? Thank you. --hitssquad 02:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I did a little searching. Apparently [1] it is the circumvention of electricity price caps via purchasing power to route it out of a given state where it can then be sold-to/purchased-by oneself and then routed back in for final sale. I only got 16 hits on google, though. It may not be a common-enough term to be the subject of a wiki article. Good luck on it, though. --hitssquad 03:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yup - it failed RfD. It has also been used to describe the smokescreen that some in power use to mask influence as in [2]. Thanks for asking. Benjamin Gatti 03:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wind power

I saw you assert that Wind is the fastest growing form of energy. As I kinda mentioned on the Wind Power discussion page, I'm not convinced that is true. I think it may be true in a certain country over a certain time period and possibly in certain niches.Chuck Simmons 02:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The growth rate for wind energy is higher than for any other form of generation (as I understand it) Growth rate is not the same as net increase in production capacity. It is the "fastest growing" - not the largest. But I'm not sure I have ready source, so I'll be sure to source it before I use it again. Thanks. Benjamin Gatti 02:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry to but in on your userpage, Ben) I think Ben is right. I have seen the numbers before many times, and the statement that Wind is growing the fastest (in terms of self-relative power sector growth) has never seemed out of line to me.[3] --hitssquad 03:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti

A final decision has been published in this case.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An explanation

The probations don't contradict each other because they are 2 different types of probation, Ben. General probation is to stop general disruptive edits. So if there is a pattern of edits across several articles that 3 admins say are disruptive, you can be banned for short periods. The other one is less severe though all it needs is one admin, not 3. It only blocks you from any particular article that you are being disruptive at. So there are 2 different probations. If the pattern used for zen is any indication, the blocks from articles typically last for a week or two, though that can vary. The general bans usually start at 24 hours. And before you complain, kate and I have no intentions of using our powers just like we haven't used them from the start. Any banning or blocking requests will be made at WP:AN or WP:AN/I. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, my impression of the process is that the rules are made up as we go along - which begs the question - why bother making rules? My impression is that the decision makers aren't engaged in the big questions, but content themselves with answering peevish trivialities. As I said earlier, the decision will receive the respect it inspires. I'm less than impressed. Benjamin Gatti 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Arbcom is law around these parts, whether you agree with their decision or not. So. If you violate the terms of your probation, you will be blocked from articles or worse. And actually, the rules are not made up as they go along. Your case was very similar to other POV pusher cases brought to the ArbCom. Probation and/or general probation are the usual remedies for that along with a short ban but you didn't get that. You are being given another chance here, Ben. That's why you only got probation. I would suggest accepting the punishment and trying to change your tactics on here. Otherwise, you will be blocked from articles and/or banned from the site for short periods. And you don't have anyone to appeal to outside of Jimbo Wales and given how highly he values NPOV, I don't see much support from him coming your way. So shape up or you will be blocked and/or banned. End of story. Sitting here and complaining about the unfair shake you think you got is not going to get you anywhere. And it's the last help I am giving you. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It hardly matters - My disappointment with the Arbcom has to do with competence, not outcome. I would have been more inspired by a lifetime ban with really solid logic, instead the Arbcom failed to engage or instruct on the core issues. Sure, I'll avoid the .01% of edits which are controversial and stick to straight ahead edits (like Ed), and what is better - find more productive venues for my time: I've already taken up micro-controller engineering, and built a model of my wave device. I have no complaints or regrets, and I stand behind every edit. (though some for illustrative reasons) Benjamin Gatti 23:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Then the probation has done it's job. And honestly Ben, even if the arbcom had done a fantastic job in your eyes, you'd still be arguing. You are anti-authority and argumentative and if you claim you aren't, you don't know yourself real well. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course I'm anti-authoritarianism; that is after all the definition of freedom, and if Wikipedia is free in the free speech sense of the word, than Wikipedia should uphold a structure of equally applied guidelines rather than a structure of incrementally more powerful and capricious individuals. Benjamin Gatti 14:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It took you less than a week to go back on your word and be disruptive again. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Others are seen as intrusive, demanding, interfering, controlling, and dominating. Others interfere with personal freedom.
  • Authority figures can be the focus of PAPD discontent. PAPDs criticize and voice hostility toward authority figures with minimal provocation.[4][5] --hitssquad 16:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the armchair diagnosis, and after giving it a fair hearing, it doesn't fit. My personal view of psychosis is that in the simplest sense, we are not a mutually sane species - an uncomfortable fact which we are more inclined to ignore than to confront. Subjects which are taboo are such because the tend to expose the the incompatibility of any three people to share common ground. Benjamin Gatti 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
No one diagnosed you, no one mentioned psychosis, and psychosis is not known to be related to PAPD. Some personality disorders are more prone to psychosis than others, particularly the Cluster A (odd, eccentric) personality disorders. PAPD is a Cluster C (anxiety) personality disorder. Personality disorders are rarely self-diagnosable since they are all ego-syntonic (compatible-with or acceptable-to the ego; "i.e., these individuals do not particularly see anything wrong with their personality. In treatment, they usually want relief from anxiety or depression. They do not seek help for character-related issues. [...] Personality-disordered individuals have difficulty imagining being any other way. Their problems are synonymous with their identities. To change may feel like virtual personal annihilation."[6]). --hitssquad 02:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
My guess is that given the chance you would diagnose each of the founding fathers as PAPD for having a profound distrust of totalitarian regimes. I would also suggest that you could construct a religion out of the same logic as above. In other words - the great unknowable "eco-syntonic" fact could serve as a foundation for emotional dependency, from which a mountain of irrational trust may grow. Intelligence alone will produce the symptoms of many so-called "personality disorders". Personally, I find refuge and companionship in the logic of the best minds (ie read a Supreme Court opinion some time) and I am disheartened by the pablum of pedestrian minds (ie read a different Supreme court opinion (Bush v. Gore is a good start). Such is undoubtedly equivalent to a personality disorder while in the company of the latter, but is conducive to pleasurable communication amongst the former. If we fail to connect in a mutually rational plane, it doesn't mean that one of us is insane, it only means that we don't share a compatible rational framework - a lot of people don't. So we move on, peaceable if possible. A note for separating incompatible logic from "disorders": Incompatible frameworks define a community of people which can intercommunicate, "Disorders" are by constitution isolating, and do not accumulate "adherents" but lead to increased isolation. Benjamin Gatti 02:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Benjamin Gatti 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Unpopular proposal

Template:Unpopular proposal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Unpopular proposal. Thank you. —David Levy 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==Clean safe nuclear power==

I am sorry to say that having reviewed your claims, I still cannot in good faith vote for the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clean safe nuclear energy for further details. Choess 04:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. I found your research to be even more compelling evidence for keeping it. The conflation of clean and nuclear appears to be an agenda item with a curious history. Benjamin Gatti 05:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you honestly not see why this article is inappropriate? It's a non-topic, and more importantly, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I enjoy making fun of Bush as much as anybody, but this belongs on a personal website, not in an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you forget the fourteen words in the previous State of the Union - which were subsequently retracted as false. I suggest that these four words are quite clearly fictitious, and deserving of similar scrutiny. Were we to build such a device, and were it to explode ala Chernobyl, then this lie would be equal in magnitude to the 14 words. A Lie in a SOTU speech is in my opinion a topic. The SOTU is a soapbox, documenting its lies is not soap. But you'd hardly be the first to disagree with me on such. Benjamin Gatti 17:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

I have blocked you for one week, pursuant to discussion at WP:AN#Editor Violating Probation for Disruptive Editing, and a previous ArbCom decision. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I will happily include your block as evidence of systemic bias against true and accurate articles related to nuclear energy. We criticize china in vain who do ourselves block the truth. Benjamin Gatti 14:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're continuing to mistake Wikipedia for your own personal blog. We go for verifiability, not truth. You need to fundamentally change your approach, otherwise the only likely outcome seems to be more blocks. Friday (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The Phrase in question is verifiable. It's history with the NEI lobbying group is verifiable, and the prior ruling that the phrase violates truth in advertising is verifiable. The exclusion of these verifiable facts is evidence of systemic subject-bias. You keep your democratic victory - I'll keep my intellectual and moral one - no one ever accused a majority of being either. Benjamin Gatti 15:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The only systematic bias at work here is against those who would use Wikipedia as a soapbox. And please provide a link to anywhere I've criticized China. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The China reference is to the recent censorship and oppression visa vi Google and Yahoo. It is to the west generally which to its credit does in fact criticise China for both. Documenting the history of well-parsed phrases used in Presidential Speeches is not soap. I suspect that the utterance of anything with which you disagree looks remarkably like a soapbox. Benjamin Gatti 15:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You silly person, I don't disagree with what you wrote. It was just blatantly non-encyclopedic. I think documenting what the president says is extremely important, and pointing out when he's inconsistent or dishonest. Putting your documentation in a Wikipedia article called Clean and safe nuclear energy]] is the wrong way to go about it, though. First of all, it wasn't an article about clean and safe nuclear energy, it was an article about something said in Bush's SOTU address. Why not add information to the article on that? A facetiously or ironically titled article will always be deleted, because we don't do that here. Your rhetorical style is well suited to a political blog, I'm sure. Read some encyclopedia articles - they're not written that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
So if you thought the content belonged in article on that - why not propose that as an appropriate resolution. ie Merge here. Perfectly sane and agreeable. Instead we have the full destruction of real content, and research now combined with a user block. Your claim of reasonability is weak. Benjamin Gatti 16:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not defensible, Ben. What you put up was a completely POV essay. And you defending it is hurting your cause, not helping it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Ben, I never saw the article until it was deleted, so I could not very well have proposed merging it. I blocked you because I looked into the case, at the request of other administrators, and saw that you're a stubborn Wiki-crusader, and you seem not to understand, despite repeated warnings, that political advocacy is not tolerated here. If you can't tell the difference between your contribution at Clean safe nuclear energy and any kind of attempt at encyclopedic writing, then you're not ready for Wikipedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Suit yourself. If you are comfortable making epistemological conclusions on hearsay, it's not for me to complain. If others are content with such leadership; people get as they say the leadership they deserve. One of us is obviously not ready for the other. The article was not advocacy, it was merely the documentation of a curious phrase, which was born of lobbyists, confronted as a lie by the BBB, and then played on the American people by the President. It deserves a place in history. Benjamin Gatti 15:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Chernobyl_medal.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Chernobyl_medal.gif. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 11:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Nuclear power

I would suggest treading water carefully on the talk page of nuclear power. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto on PAA. The arbcom ruling means that you don't get the "benefit of the doubt" for long before you are blocked from articles. I'd suggest trying to work with people instead of the same old indirect accusations of bias and hypocricy and everything else. I mean this Chernobyl stuff is about a year old now. Rearguing the same issues again and again isn't exactly what the arbcom had in mind when they put sanctions on you. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
And whatever issue you're having over that article and this "arbcom" nonsense, leave me out of Wikipedia politics please. Thanks! Rondack 05:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned from Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and Nuclear power

Hello. Due to disruptive editing, logged here, I've banned you from the articles Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and nuclear power and the accompanying talk pages until 6 February 2007, under the terms of your probation as set forth in your ArbCom case. Thank you, and I urge you to respect these bans.--Sean Black (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

I have asked that your recent edits be evaluated for sanctions under your arbcom probation, see WP:AN/I. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Due to your disruptive editing and per the terms of your probation and the consensus of three administrators, logged here, you are banned from Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, Nuclear safety and their accompanying talk pages. You are also blocked from editing for one week. I urge you to respect these bans and consider avoiding the issue of nuclear power altogether if you are unable to respect Wikipedia policy while editing articles on it. Regards, Sam Blanning(talk) 18:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy portal

Hi! As a contributor to WikiProject Energy development, I thought you might like to be aware of the opportunity to contribute to the new Energy Portal, now that there is one... No need to reply. Gralo 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wave Energy

Hi Ben,

While roving around Wikipedia, I found your user page and the link to your site on wave energy generation. I thought you might want to take a look at an elegant concept design named "Wave Garden" by Japanese architect Yusuke Obuchi. I originally learned about the project two and a half years ago from this post by well-known blogger Jason Kottke. It appears that the original link to the project's page in his post is dead, but I dug up this page which provides a few details and some computer-generated sketches, not entirely disimilar to those illustrating your "WaveBlanket" concept. Hope you find this interesting!

Cheers,

Jordan

--S0uj1r0 13:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/n/User_talk%7EBenjamin_Gatti_e726.html"