User talk:Benapgar/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Request for Arbitration Notice

This is a formal notice that I have filed a Request for Arbitration in the matter of Chocolateboy v Benapgar. I have made my statements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration --Ben 1 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)

[edit] Homophora

[edit] Climate Change

[edit] Discussion on modifying structure of Climate Change articles

Discuss changes here.

[edit] there is a recent example that explains our reaction to a proliferation of pages

If you perform a search on search.yahoo.com for

  sciencemag 1686 site:wikipedia.org

you will see several, but not all because the search engines are little behind, references to the poor quality recent sciencemag "essay" surveying the literature for support of the consensus view. It has already propogated widely and should be be included uncritically, yet it is nearly impossible to keep up with. This is why you encountered what was probably a visceral reaction to relatively reasonable suggestions. It is much easier to achieve a wiki consensus if controversial topics are somewhat constrained to just a few pages.--Silverback 09:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to proliferate pages, I would like to see the content re-structured. The only new pages would be global climate change and climate forcings (which we need anyway because it is often used in the science). I would actually like to see offshoot pages like "attributions to climate change" and "global warming controversy" or whatever those are called be absorbed into the new pages. I think with the structure I proposed this could be done succinctly. Instead of discussing climate forcings involved in detail right on the page, for example, you could have a shorter discussion and link to the climate forcings page.
Or even just cleaning up other stuff that I would probably have to ask and/or painstakingly make sure was accurate. For example on "global warming controversy" the section Supporters of the Global Warming theory and Opponents of the Global Warming theory could, and should in my opinion, link directly to "scientific opinion on climate change" as long as those opinions could be considered scientific, with all due credentials provided so people can make their own decisions as to how authoritative the source is. Global warming controversy (I think should be renamed gl cl ch c) can discuss any theories or something, but yet another problem is that the controversy assumes that it is only a two-sided anthropogenic vs. non-anthropogenic issue, which to me blows it out of proportion. I find the current structure does not help at all, but I am beginning to see why you are using it. Still, I do not think it is scientific, I think the structure is based more on the politics rather than the science.
We were in the process of eliminating the controversy page, since that is also covered on the other pages. I don't think the forcings is going to be a good page. William is probably the only one that can write it, and he didn't want it. Whenever the term is used, there is usually a clarifying phrase to state which forcings they meant, because it probably needs to be qualified where-ever it is used, it is seldom used genericly, I don't think a lot is gained by having the page.--Silverback 13:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Global Climate Change

I've created a page which I think represents (it isn't entirely complete, politics esp.) my idea of a Global Climate Change page.

User:Benapgar/Global_climate_change

[edit] Global warming controversy

You may wish to comment here: Talk:Global warming controversy#Wikipedia Style Guide: Bad Form — Cortonin | Talk 23:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misc.

[edit] POV tag

Simply adding the dispute tag to an article whose contents you don't agree with is not constructive. Please address on the Talk page of Illegal enemy combatant what issues you have with the text. Thank you. Viajero 15:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know you were the Ben on the Talk page. My apologies. -- Viajero 18:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Ann Coulter

Nice work on Coulter v Canada. [1] It was kicking my ass till you waltzed in and made it look easy (and impeccably non-partisan). I hate it when that happens :-)

chocolateboy 02:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks chocolateboy! (harder than it looks) I see there's still trouble a-brewing over it >:/, maybe I'll have another look and see if I can help. --Ben 20:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal enemy combatant

As you are a contributer to the page Illegal enemy combatant please see the merge templage that I have put on the article and the section Talk:Illegal enemy combatant#Merge with Unlawful combatant section United States -- Philip Baird Shearer 16:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O Canada translation

I moved your question about the Inuktitut version of O Canada to Talk:O Canada and answered it there. Diderot 10:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Misc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/William_M._Connolley_vs_Cortonin

[edit] Climate change project

In view of your comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change, I'd ask you to clarify your concerns. I'm not sure I fully understand your proposal of six months ago, or how it fits into the current structure of the topic. (I notice one point you make in the proposal may be covered by my recent creation of politics of global warming - please feel free to help develop this from its current drafty state.) Rd232 12:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For a clarification of my concerns about WMC you can see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley and Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley. Just look for my posts. I don't want to go through it again. I'm not going to contribute to the project with him there, and he's the most knowledgable so it's not like he's going to go away. I just wanted it on the record. People can take what they want from my comments.--Ben 22:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
And, regarding how my proposal does not fit into the current structure of the topic, that is the entire point. It is a different structure which I believe, for the most part, represents the science more neutrally and objectively, avoids ambiguity and "double-meaning" in article names like "global warming," and "climate change," and as a result would lead to less confusion about the subject, a more accurate and easy way to describe the subject, and less contention amongst skeptics who have every right to edit the pages. I further believe that the simplicity of the structure, straight-forward naming scheme, and a few notes to the reader, would offset any confusion arising from the different structure and the climate pages would be far better off than their current dismal state. For example, I see that "global warming," in the sense of the current trend, is more fitting a headline of a newspaper than a scientific journal. WMC disagrees. He's not going anywhere and will argue and insult my opinions under the table. Note that the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration agress with me when it comes to the definition of global warming, and not WMC. However, this means nothing to him.--Ben 23:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Please stop going on about WMC. I am not WMC. And I hoped for something more helpful and less self-justificatory. I have reservations about splitting climate change and global warming, but people seem to want it and the topic is too important to ignore just because of some disagreements. As for whether it should be "global warming" or "climate change" as the main article - Wikipedia is addressing something closer to the audience of a newspaper than of a scientific journal, which is why we have the naming conventions we do. Also, we have a terminology section in global warming, and a glossary article. Rd232 09:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I must have misinterpreted what your were asking about. I thought you were asking for a clarification with respect to my comment on the CC Project page, the one about WMC. If you mean my concerns about the organization of the topic, I do not want to argue about it because I hate arguing about it. I've provided links to arguments I've made which for the most part reflect my position. Here is another you can look at: Talk:Global climate change/Archive one. Regarding whether "global warming" or "climate change" should be the main article? Climate change, or I would even prefer climate forcing to be the main page. The current trend must have its own page separate from the climate change page. This is scientific topic not a newspaper. Look at the page on Gold for example. The information provided is scientific. --Ben 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
As for climate forcing, this was felt to unnecessarily duplicate (at least in its current form) climate change. I said somewhere that it's not a question of permanent deletion - it can always be recreated if, for example, climate change gets too big and needs a daughter article. I don't know why it was redirected to radiative forcing, but I was mainly concerned with avoiding duplication, which there is far too much of in this topic, which inhibits the drive towards greater quality. The page was gone for two weeks without comment, so please justify keeping it. Rd232 09:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
If you look at the history of the climate change article, it was in an extremely poor state[2] when I created the climate forcing page. Now someone has taken a lot of the information from climate forcing and put it onto the climate change page. You may have a point that it "unnecessarily duplicates the material" because someone has duplicated the information which is on climate forcing and put it on the climate change page. Maybe climate change should instead redirect to climate forcing. One thing is for sure, it should not redirect to radiative forcing, which Dr. Self-proclaimed genius did (I couldn't resist). Radiative forcing is a certain type of climate forcing. It is a sub-topic of climate forcing. The RF article does not, for instance, deal with orographic lift, a climate forcing mechanism, where mountains cause rain on the windward side. Orographic lift is not a radiative forcing, nor is it a global climate forcing. It is a non-radiative regional climate forcing which is extremely common, has been studied extensively, and is simple enough that I learned about it in 8th grade--though I'm thinking the name was simpler, but it was the same thing. That's my justification. (Regarding your justification for removal, a frequent user such as yourself should surely know there are many pages which are not visited or edited frequently. Furthermore, read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.)
One thing I know that many people have trouble with: climate change and global warming have nothing to do with the current trend. Taken literally, as one does in science, they are scientific and have important scientific information which goes with them. The Medieval Warm Period experienced a global warming. Notice how that link is not going to work with all the information about the current trend contained in that article. People cannot go to the global warming article to learn about how Earth, or planets even, can be warmed via the greenhouse effect and other mechanisms. Instead they are presented with data and information about the current trend. This I think is a big problem.
Anyway, I don't want to explain it, I've argued it to death and I'm still arguing now even though I said I wouldn't. It is difficult to express my point, especially as I am not an expert on the subject, and it seems no matter how hard I try it doesn't matter. I take solace in that apparently the NOAA and many other institutions involved in examining the current climate change agree that the phrase "global warming" is not to be used to refer to the current warming trend, presumably because it is confusing, which is what I've been saying all along.
This explains it the best:
A.3 What is the difference between climate change and global warming?
Response: Climate change refers to general shifts in climate, including temperature, precipitation, winds, and other factors. This may vary from region to region. On the other hand, global warming (as well as global cooling) refers specifically to any change in the global average surface temperature. In other words, global warming or cooling is one type of planetary scale climate change. Global warming is often misunderstood to imply that the world will warm uniformly. In fact, an increase in average global temperature will also cause the circulation of the atmosphere to change, resulting in some areas of the world warming more, while other areas warming less than the average. Some areas can even cool.
Explanation: The initial response of the earth's atmosphere to a ‘climate forcing' is a change in flow of sun and heat energy through the atmosphere that causes temperatures at the surface, in the atmosphere and within the oceans to change. However, these changes in temperature are more rapid over land than water, and can cause changes in many other aspects of the climate. For example, warmer temperatures would cause more evaporation, higher humidity in the atmosphere, changes in cloud cover and in rain or snowfall, more snow and ice melt, and changes in winds and ocean currents, and so forth. Many of these secondary changes also affect temperature, resulting in a complex interplay of different processes that can amplify the increase in temperature in some regions and moderate changes, or even cause cooling, in others. In other words, a climate forcing that causes global warming also causes many other aspects of the climate to change in complex ways. Therefore, the term ‘climate change' is the more accurate description of how climate system responds to a forcing. Unfortunately, although it can significantly misrepresent what really happens, the term ‘global warming' is still often used by media and others to describe climate change.[3]
I refuse to argue the content though, having done so already. If you want to argue it with someone, you can contact media spokeperson for climate and climate change impact Dr. Stewart Cohen who would, I presume, vouch for the content.

Thank you for that clarification. The structure is indeed tricky to resolve. I've made a proposal on the wikiproject page. Rd232 18:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design

[edit] WP:3RR

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Ryan Delaney --Ben 06:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but please understand that stale edit warring is never an acceptable solution to a content dispute. This is why the three revert rule is in effect, and there are no exceptions. If you want to have the dispute mediated, you may put in a request at WP:RFM. But again, I strongly urge you to stop using reverts as an editing tactic; especially when you label good-faith edits as "vandalism". --Ryan Delaney talk 06:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Warning about your actions at Intelligent design

You've violated the 3 revert rule. Please read WP:3rr. I think it's reasonable to assume that you are also 24.57.157.81 (talk • contribs) based on your edit histories. I've reported the violation and you may be temporarily blocked from editing. If you continue to be disruptive you can also be blocked for that. Please reconsider your tactics and learn to abide by consensus. On that note, there's broad consensus for the original, long-term dablink, and there's no support for your version, which has been convincingly shown to be factually inaccurate and pov. Also, don't mischaracterize the restorationg of the consensus version of the dablink template as vandalism -- it is not. I'm restoring it again. FeloniousMonk 06:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop being disruptive at Talk:Intelligent design. FeloniousMonk 00:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design

Ben, would you please concentrate on content at this article, and not resort to personal comments on the talk page? The discussion has become somewhat toxic because of this, which makes it unpleasant for everyone to work on. Please try to assume good faith of the other editors and argue your case, or perhaps try to find someone who will help you to argue it. Also, it isn't appropriate to write an RfC in such a non-neutral way, though the current one seems better, so thank you for changing it. I hope it brings in some helpful opinions. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Replied on User_talk:SlimVirgin --Ben 07:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben, thanks for your note. I'm sorry you're feeling frustrated. I've only looked at one of your diffs. [4] The problem with it is that the first sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but it seems as though you're trying to define intelligent design right off the bat, in a personal way that not everyone would agree with. So that's not appropriate for the intro (or indeed for anywhere else). I'm about to go offline, but I'll take a closer look tomorrow, because maybe there's a compromise that can be reached. In the meantime, you might want to consider apologizing to the editors on the page about the personal remarks: explain you were feeling frustrated and tell them it won't happen again. You'll find they're a forgiving bunch, and if there's a good working relationshp between you all, then it'll be easier to find a compromise. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Replied on User_talk:SlimVirgin --Ben 07:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ben, I'm not sure what I can do to help out here. Several editors on the talk page appear to have identified you as disruptive, which is why people are responding poorly to your suggestions. Again, looking at your edit to the disambiguation tag: "This article is about the American idiom "Intelligent Design" which concerns only anti-evolutionist Theists and teleological arguments for their beliefs. For the associated social movement see ID as a movement. For the book, see Intelligent Design (book). For information about the concept of an intelligent being(s) who designed the universe, see instead Theism."
Here's my opinion. I see this as a very POV edit, and I'd have reverted it too. First, it's not clear that the phrase is an idiom, but even if it is, a disambiguation tag is not the place to state it as a fact, when it's something you'd need to argue for, and find a source who had made that argument. Also, it's not clear in what sense it would be a peculiarly American idiom. The next part "which concerns only anti-evolutionist theists ..." doesn't make a lot of grammatical sense. It is an idiom about theists who oppose theories of evolution, or that is used by them, or what? And grammar apart, it's a POV argument, which you'd need to make in the body of the text, with a source. The idiom "concerns" teleological arguments for the beliefs of these theists: justifies the beliefs, explains them, is about, or what?
Today, I see you're arguing for a complete restructuring of the article, which isn't going to be accepted from you. My advice to you, if you want to edit this article, is to apologize for the personal comments and to wait a few days to read the archives, and get to the know the other editors a little. If they continue to see you as disruptive, there's a chance they'll request admin action against you. Also, please read our editorial policies about the need to use good sources and not come up with your own arguments. See WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. If there's a particular edit you feel is consistent with all these polices and yet is being deleted, please let me know and I'll take a look. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Ben, I saw your note to FM. You can't file an RfAr as a first step; they won't accept it. You could try to file an article RfC, not one on an editor, but asking the community to comment on the article. Would that be a better idea? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I have FM's talk page on my watchlist. I'm sorry I'd forgotten you'd already filed an article RfC. I can assure you the arbcom will not accept a case without evidence of prior dispute-resolution efforts and evidence of policy violations. Which policies exactly are you alleging FM is in violation of? Also, I don't know what your aim is in all of this? Best-case scenario, what would you like to achieve? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

Ben, this kind of comment "Refusal to discuss, misinterpretation, and bad faith. That's par for the course with you. Get a grip" isn't helping. I understand that you're frustrated, but please try to concentrate on the content, not on the editor. See WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Right back at ya. --Ben 06:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
There's no point in just asking me to stop posting on your talk page. I'm trying to decide whether to take admin action against you for disruption, or whether you're acting in good faith. This edit of yours, for example, saying that "Intelligent Design is wholly a product of the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank. The idea has been around since 1990" is false and unsourced. [5] The article says further down that the term first came up in a 1988 conference, and was first published in 1989. (I first heard it during a lecture in or around 1986, but that wasn't in print.) If you want to make claims like this, you should cite a good source after the sentence, either by linking to it if it's online, using a footnote, or adding a Harvard reference (e.g. Smith 2005), then adding a full citation in the references section. But to insert an unsourced claim in the intro that directly contradicts something elsewhere in the article is unhelpful, to say the least. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Do not post on my talk page as I requested. --Ben 21:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Stop inserting POV and original research into the Intelligent design article. Also, abide by consensus. Your continual disruption of that article is testing the community's patience. Stop disrupting the article or you can blocked from editing. FeloniousMonk 19:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This must be the second FeloniousMonk since the first one said something quite different on the ID talk page! [6] --Ben 20:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You've been blocked for 24 hours for ignoring warnings against disruptive behavior, ignoring consensus, WP:NPA, etc. Please use this time to read and understand: Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Harassment, Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule, and Wikipedia:No original research. Also use this time off to reflect on how your method of participation at this article has disrupted others. FeloniousMonk 20:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

And please use your time to get your RFA case together. I know I will. --Ben 20:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you not realise that everything you've done has either been disruptive or malicious? You have been continually threatening Wikilegal action instead of seeking consensus, which is incredibly counterproductive. And now you seem to be revelling in being blocked, presumably because you might be able to use it as amunition against FeloniousMonk. I have every reason to suspect you have a personal history with either the article on Intelligent Design, or with FeloniousMonk.
While I do not necessarily agree with the block, I certainly feel you brought this on yourself, and indeed were trying to provoke the other editors. -- Ec5618 21:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User conduct RFC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Benapgar FeloniousMonk 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Chill out

Ben, heed my words please. If you doubt my street 'cred, check my edits for my bona fides (I am no cabal member). If you want to make headway; mock up a version of the pgraphs you want to re-write on a scratch page and then when you like it, post it to talk page and get ready to defend it rationally and civilly, with citations. If you don't or if you call names, you are going to meet disaster. Getting edits into an article as a minority voice, requires forbearance. If you insult, rush in many edits or fight too much, you'll get pigpiled [7].

It's better to be a living dog than a dead lion.

And don't fight with SlimVirgin - she's very rational and can be helpful.

Rex071404 216.153.214.94 01:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It's too late to sort this out. We'll see what happens. Sometimes that dog gets a little sick of being kicked around.

And I found out SlimVirgin is friends with the guy I am having the dispute with anyway, or at least she just happens to have his talk pages on her watchlist (see above) and also somehow magically got informed of the dispute in the first place, since there's no record of either of them talking to each other about it. She doesn't talk to him about what he is doing on his talk page even when I ask if she could talk to him about my problems. Doesn't tell him to calm down or respect what I have to say. --Ben 11:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design (disambiguation)

"MoS" = Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Disambiguation pages aren't articles, but navigation aids. They should avoid secondary internal links and piping of primary links, and should keep explanation to a minimum (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)). "See also" sections might be OK, so long as they genuinely aid navigation (which they rarely do). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence Section in RFC

[edit] Don't edit the evidence against you

Don't edit the evidence against you, we'll manage just fine, thankyou very much. You have your own bit in which to respond. Dunc|☺ 22:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"We'll manage just fine"

[edit] Evidence section

Do not edit in the evidence section, and never alter any part of another user's post, no matter where it is. If this disruption continues, I will consider blocking you. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Keep your pants on. I copy and pasted in the wrong place. Ben 01:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite Zeq 05:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Zeq's talk page. --Ben 00:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi - I'm sorry I haven't met you before but I ran into your response on Zeq's page and wished to clarify a couple of things:
  • You cited this link as evidence of my POV and criticized my use of the word "although". I looked at that link, and it is very evident to me that it is Zeq's version that contains the word "although" and not mine. Look at the two editor names at the top of each column. It was Zeq who reverted to that version, I had removed the "although" statement myself. The although statement originated before I ever came to Wikipedia. I tried to change it, Zeq reverted back to it (unintentionally maybe, but he persisted to revert that way regardless of what I wrote).
  • As far as being civil, I urge you read the discussion page of the barrier article because you may have missed out on the colorful discussion that took place.
I just wanted to make sure you see things in perspective. I have no idea what your own dispute with SlimVirgin involves, but I want to make sure that you hear directly from me as the other side of the barrier article conflict. Thanks Ramallite (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the information Ramallite. I withdrew my opposition. --Ben 01:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Dispute

Anytime someone asks for help with dispute and fails to actually mention the article in dispute will draw some suspicion. You also failedto log in, (assuming youre also Benapgar -this is crossposted See WP:SIG for why to login.), etc, and write in generalities about policy rather than the issues present in the debate. You also have a talk page (assuming youre Ben) thats loaded with comments about your behaviour. I dont care about the talk comments at this point, but all of this adds up to "low interest" - the debate itself is not a problem for me. Please correct the above and I can help you out. As a general rule, and this is really just a basic aspect of NPOV (read it, learn it, love it) is that you dont make separate articles based on a separate POV. While a scientist may claim that for example ID is a POV fork of the whole concept of science, we can at least treat the subject objectively. In that context, all articles must be written objectively (yes this is a contstant battle) and all sides must be represented in balance, in terms which the reader can understand. In the ID context, just for example, its perfectly fair to report the characterizations that ID makes of mainstream science, as well as the vice versae, as long as its framed as opinion. The framework allows for us to deal with POV in an NPOV way. Regards, St|eve 03:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Responded on Stevertigo's talk page. (I simply said "Never mind.")--Ben 03:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
After your explanation and my reply, what do you mean "never mind"? Please elaborate. Was it not the answer you were looking for? Im very curious to know. -St|eve 03:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
To answer your general question, it was not rendered a guideline just because someone changed it. It should actually be policy, but its rather poorly written at this point, and at best it can qualify as a guideline. This is really a no-brainer, and something that Jimbo has said from the beginning: we dont fork articles by POV. Email the wikien-l mailing list, and youll get this same answer. In fact this was a very important early debate in the formation of Wikipedias core ethos and policy, of which NPOV is supreme, and WP:CIVIL is second. If you want to write POV - oriented articles you can user Fred's wikinfo, which he created as a fork of wikipedia -- expressly for the purpose of writing POV -oriented fork articles. Regards, -St|eve 03:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:POV fork

Try asking the last 10 editors of that page & see what they say Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 13:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

you may find it illuminating to read this discussion.
KillerChihuahua 15:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your request for Arbitration

I originally voted to reject your request pending the completion of the RfC filed against you by FeloniousMonk. While it is evident that your conduct has not been sterling, I am concerned about the conduct of some of the others in your case. If you want to renew your request for Arbitration, I will withdraw the objection for not having gone to RfC. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Ben, I'm going to have to ask you again to lay off the personal attacks against FeloniousMonk. (I'm referring to your recent comment about him "nearly lying.") Please let go of whatever this issue is. I've seen this happen many times before on Wikipedia. Users, often new ones, get obsessed with a dispute and continue it for months on different user-talk and article-talk pages, invariably ending up with RfCs and in front of the arbcom, but not before wasting a lot of people's time and energy, including their own. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you've had intractable difficulties at Intelligent Design and with FM, please just move on, and perhaps you can return to it in a few weeks with fresh eyes. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack please read it more closely. Someone just moved it to the archive page you will see it there. FM was implying I was on a rampage after being unblocked and when I called him on it he went crazy and started spinning what I was talking about.--Ben 01:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)