User talk:Pravknight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Pravknight: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! --FloNight talk 22:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Negotiation

Hello Pravknight : - ) Welcome to Wikipedia. In the edit summary regarding TheocracyWatch article, I requested that you discuss instead of revert. Could you help reword the text instead of reverting. We need to negotiate the wording. --FloNight talk 22:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What Do You Mean

I write for the Daily Local News for a living, and I worded everything the way I would word it there. I deal with contentious issues all of the time.

What do you want with the rewording?

WP:NPA

Copied: Felonius, I am convinced you are nothing but an ignorant bigot. I hear the Black helicopters coming Felonius. :) Pravknight--Pravknight 01:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy against making personal attacks. Please discuss the content not the editor. You will be blocked if you continue this type of negative behavior. --FloNight talk 01:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Please read the policies that are listed in the welcome message above. I'm not sure that you fully grasp the the way that content decisions are made. The key policies related to content are WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. If you have questions, you can contact me on my user page. FloNight talk 02:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please abide by WP:3RR. FeloniousMonk 04:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pleave do not ask other members to live by rules that you don't abide by yourself. User:Pravknight

License tagging for Image:Chuck colson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chuck colson.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Chuck_Colson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chuck_Colson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sarum-rite.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarum-rite.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If I get formal permission from the abbot of the Monastery,should I post it for Wikipedia's purposes? --Pravknight 15:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Right-wing banter

Did I ever say that only arguments for gay rights, etc. should be included in articles? No, I only said they should be properly cited. Did I ever say that there are no POV problems in homosexuality-related articles? No, I only said that if you see them and want them fixed you need to copy them from the article to the talk page and, sentence-by-sentence, explain the problems you have with them. Stop whining and do something effective for a change. -Smahoney 22:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian debate ove same-sex marriage

Please don't create articles with new titles while the original page is the subject of an AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is not the same one that was posted before. Besides, the AfD is politically motivated, and has nothing to do with NPOV integrity. Both sides are represented equally in the article. I surmise some folks do not wish to see refutation of pro-homosexual arguments posted anywhere on Wikipedia. The public has the right to know.

One of the original arguments was that religious arguments was too broad. I fixed that. --Pravknight 03:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "I surmise some folks do not wish to see refutation of pro-homosexual arguments posted anywhere on Wikipedia", you might see my comment immediately above this section. -Smahoney 03:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Warning: misuse of templates

The vandalism templates are for clear vandalism only. Please don't post a warning template on anybody's page until you have gathered a much better sense of what is and isn't vandalism. Accusing good-faith contributors of vandalism is harmful to the working climate and to the encyclopedia. Please see WP:VAND: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia". As for the {{blatantvandal}} template, which is for extreme or obscene vandalism, don't use it at all; leave it to more experienced editors. I have removed it from KillerChihuahua's page. Bishonen | talk 12:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

What do you mean by misuse? It's not good faith to go to a page and revert it to a slanderous form that is blatant ediorializing. I'm still learning the ropes around here, but I believe KillerChihauhua

has engaged in vandalism on the Paul Weyrich biography. His posting certainly is not NPOV compliant. If he want's to accuse Mr. Weyrich of wanting to expell Wiccans from the military or of wanting to suppress their first amendment right, then he should cite a third-party source saying such.

It's slander and editorializing to do otherwise. I do not believe KillerChihauhua is acting in good faith, but I see what he has been doing on that page as an effort to slander Mr. Weyrich. If I posted a similar comment or editorialization on the Noam Chomsky or Jesse Jackson site, I would be accused of vandalism. There's a double standard in it's enforcement. I would like KillerChihauhua banned from editing Mr. Weyrich's biography.

--Pravknight 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're still learning the ropes, wouldn't there be a certain logic in listening to what experienced users and adminstrators tell you, instead of bristling up at them? You'd learn them faster that way. Don't post warning templates again until you have familiarized yourself with WP:VAND, and don't post {{blatantvandal}} at all. This is an official administrator warning. Meanwhile, if you would like to embarrass yourself to a wider audience, you can report what you mistakenly perceive as vandalism at the page WP:VIP. I advise against it, and it's likely to be removed as frivolous, but, formally, you can do it. Bishonen | talk 16:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC).
Understood. Where could I find tutorials on this maze of Wikipedia rules? If I feel that I need mediation with a user who will not work with me in a constructive fashion, where should I go? It's awefully confusing.--Pravknight 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
A good starting place is Category:Wikipedia official policy and Wikipedia:List of policies. You may also request mentoring, if you wish, here: Wikipedia:Mentorship. -Smahoney 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

You must have had the wrong licensing tag on it, as it had a speedy I3 tag. See: I3 deletion criteria. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The best thing is to got to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights and ask there what is the correct way to tag the image. These guys spend all their time answering questions like that and I've got help from them before. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Please make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Fred Bauder 02:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

user conduct RFC

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight Please try to benefit and learn from what is said there by others. This isn't a personal attack needn't be confrontational. FeloniousMonk 04:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been confrontational from the get go because you have had your agenda. To be blunt, you haven't edited in good faith. I will accuse you of fact. NPOV = left-wing bias. You haven't worked at including me in any consensus. In fact you have done just the opposite. Instead of working at developing language we all could live by, you have waged a war against me. This isn't a personal attack, it's the cold truth.--Pravknight 04:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Chuck colson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chuck colson.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|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 have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BrownCow • (how now?) 19:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't include any place for tagging public domain images.--Pravknight 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Where did you get the image? We need the source of the image. Who took the photo? How do you know that it is public domain? There are pages of tags that are added based on answers to these and more questions. I'll help you properly tag it if you tell me the source. FloNight talk 22:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The image is a publicity photo that I found using Google Images that's already being used by dozens of sites on-line. I'm still figuring out things, and I'm planning on staying out of harm's way until I get things figured better.--Pravknight 22:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Likely not public domain. Wikipedia has a strict policy that only permits use of photos that can be freely reused. The exception is for images that can not be obtained any other way. There is a gray area for images like the one you uploaded. A free image is strongly desired but if none are available then a publicity photos can be used in limited ways under fair use. We need the name of the site and the photographer so that proper credit can be given.
There are many policies to learn, for sure. :-) Once you learn them, they will be your friend because they are supportive of good ideals. I'll help you as long as you do not get into fights with other edits. Not going to involve myself with fights between editors. Take care, FloNight talk 23:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Hello Pravknight I'm disappointed. What happened to "I'm planning on staying out of harm's way until I get things figured better.--Pravknight 22:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)." From your comment, I thought that you wanted to work with FM and the other editors on the page. Today you are back to complaining about the editors. From the beginning you've pushed to have certained editors banned from the article. I find that troubling because it shows unwillingness to do consensus editing. I've offered to help with content issues several times. Instead you want to focus on other removing other editors.

Please try your best to resolve this issue with the editors through consensus editing based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. IMO, you have not made a good effort to resolve this dispute per Wikipedia policy. Again, I offer to help but only if you stop demanding that certain editors are banned from this article. Banning any editors is a non-starter with me. FloNight talk 20:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not looking to ban anyone here, but the problem has become one where FM and the other editors aren't interested in providing proper citations. They instead insist upon deleting logs when I try attributing opinions, they call it "whitewashing." The entire process has broken down with editors who disregard the rules of WP:CITE,WP:WTA,WP:FES,WP:NPOV. If these rules can't be fairly applied, they're meaningless.

Accusing me of whitewashing is a personal attack. The term "theocratic right" is a perjorative term used by enemies of the Christian right, and it think is violates WP:WTA. Should users avoid sources that are unsupported by third-party evidence? The entire TheocracyWatch page provides no citations of Weyrich's connection to Dominionism, and in turn is a blog. I tried being conciliatory, and threw in a citation to support their opinions, but that wasn't good enough for them. --Pravknight 21:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Pravknight, I'm going to make some changes to the article. I read through it and see a few things that can be changed. I'm sure that I can find wording that will be satisfactory to all. I'll also help you add strongly worded content that clarifies his actual beliefs. I need your help because we need to find verifiable sources that offer snapshot of his theology. I'm certain that they exist. We need to find them. :-)
I planned to look for sources yesterday but was distracted by the plane crashed in Lexington. I'll get on it later today I promise. See what you can find, okay.
Eliminating TheocracyWatch from the article is not going to happen. There is no getting around including them. Because of the the nature of his notability, organizations like TW can comment on his beliefs. We need to counteract them with solid references that show something different. FloNight 22:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but I want language that makes it clear the sentiments are opinions, not facts, or are at least that are disputed. I always hold sources to high levels of credibility, Flo.

Go over my earlier edits. FM, keeps deleting a citation where Mr. Weyrich indicates he would not be part of a movement that would create an Iran-style Theocracy.

"Now that the South does have the upper hand in the Republican Party Phillips is bitter about it. I see no theocracy here. As someone who has helped the religious right transition to the political process, I would have nothing to do with something akin to Iran translated into Americanize." [1] It boggles my mind why FM et. alia., want this assertion gone.

I wanted to elaborate more on Mr. Weyrich's unconventional views on trade unions, protectionism, opposition to neoconservatism, etc., but if you would be kind enough to work with me here on my talk page I would be receptive and pleased. Weyrich favors trade protectionism and high tariffs, unlike the so-called Dominionists who believe in unrestricted free-trade. You can decide for yourself whether his views exemplify the Catholic virtue of subsidiarity. I do. Here are some samples from his "The Next Conservatism" series: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

TheocracyWatch claims opposition to the items I mentioned are hallmarks of Dominionism.

Also, I tried providing a citation for the Wicca section, which I believe is WP:NOR, yet FM et. alia. deleted it.

I only want everything in their proper context. I will stand aside, and let you deal with FM and his friends. Mr. Weyrich said nothing explicit about throwing the Wiccans/Satanists out of the military, but he did attack the official sanction. I am just trying to do my best to make sure Wikipedia is a credible source to outsiders. I don't care the assertion is in there, just that who makes the claim is properly cited.

How do you define "reliable source"?

Perhaps you could explain the reliable source rule to me as you understand it because I'm applying newspaper rules here. I was a copy editor for The Journal Newspapers for awhile.

I tried segregating the criticism into a separate section.--Pravknight 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Caution on deleting the talk page comments of others

Deleting the talk page comments of others, [10], is against policy. Please do not do it again. FeloniousMonk 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It was unintentional. Besides FeloniousMonk, you violated WP:AGF,WP:NPA, by accusing me of acting maliciously in posting the template to warn readers the information they were about to read was disputed. Cue me in here. Do you interpret the rules, or do you make them as you go? I guess the information contained in different sources doesn't need to be backed up with any fact checking, right? --Pravknight 23:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you claim to be a reporter who declares that "show me the money" is one of his key operating principles, and who nevertheless violates that principle when its inconvenience rears its ugly head. To wit, "What does Mr. Weyrich stand for that FM disdains so readily? Organized religion. As an administrator, FeloniousMonk can be shown to arbitrarily use his power to advance his atheistic worldview." Well, dude, show me the money. •Jim62sch• 23:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


I come in Peace. Waving a whiteflag. Will not help if you are in the middle of an active edit war.
FYI Pravknight, editors do not have to assume good faith after an users shows that they are not acting in good faith. That is the reason that it is important for you to stay calm and not to enforce policy and guidelines against experienced editors and administrators. You need more experience before you can properly understand how the content and behavior policies work together. Again, please let me help you. --FloNight 23:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean that I'm not acting in good faith? The first thing that happened to me when I politely questioned the validity of FM's edit the first time around was that he bit me. Of everyone here, I sense you Flo are the most reasonable, so I will work through you if you don't mind.

All I care is we get an encyclopedic, professional tone in this place. As it stands, it's far amiss.--Pravknight 20:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pravknight can you find some notable reliable sources that contain text about Mr. Weyrich's religous beleifs. Also more background information about him that might explain his religous beliefs. I know this type of information exists. Be creative in thinking about how to gather them. FloNight 22:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A request

Pravknight, I'd like to request that you tone down your responses a little to the RfC. While it's legitimate (of course) to defend yourself, and also legitimate within reason to criticize your critics, I feel you're going too far by reposting material from other pages, including old RfAs. It begins to look as though you're out to cause more trouble rather than finding a way to resolve the differences. RfCs are intended to lead to a resolution of disputes. I realize they can arouse strong feelings, and I do understand why, but the situation can end up getting out of hand. I don't know what the issues are, and so I can't suggest any concrete steps, but in general, I would say it would help if you could try to see whether the criticism of you is grounded in any way, and if it is (even slightly) to concentrate on improving those aspects of your editing, rather than on prolonging the attacks. Least said, soonest mended. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll cool off, but FM really needs to be more flexible. I feel unfairly attacked here, and I posted the old RfAs because they show my point about FM's judgment. FM started this fight and has refuse to meet me half way. I have tried countless times to go half way, and he's refused.
But my cooling off shouldn't = the status quo of poorly sourced articles and ad hominem wording posing as encyclopedic content.--Pravknight 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Pravknight, it is the opinion of experienced editors and administrators that the article as it is written now meets the standards of core Wikipedia content policy. I think that the article can be improved by including additional relevant, verifiable, notable content. Also the wording could be tweaked a bit perhaps to make it more encyclopedic. Or course, this can be said for the majority of the articles in Wikipedia.
The RFC was done to give you honest feedback about your participation in Wikipedia. It is a sanctioned method for fixing problems on Wikipedia. No one unfairly attacked you on the RFC. As RFCs go your RFC is actually tame. This is because most of the editors commenting are administrators that understand our policy. Some RFCs attract a large crowd of less experienced users that are upset about the way policy is being enforced. These RFCs must constantly be monitored because they gather overly rude or complete attack comments that must be reverted.
Pravknight, you must stop focusing on the editor and instead focus on developing content needed to improve the article. If you continue to be aggressive and not assume good faith about other editors likely that you will be given a short (24 hour) block that stops you from editing. I do not want you to be blocked so please try to do better. FloNight 21:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

Many articles on Wikipedia have criticism sections. I suggest segregating the Dominionism/witchcraft section into a separate section. I can't win here, so I have to accept the judgment, although I disagree.--Pravknight 22:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I do not like controversy sections on any articles. The controversy section encourage readers to go forth and find controversy when usually it is the other topics of the articles that are neglected. These sections also draw the attention of the reader to the controversy giving it more prominence in the article. They cause disputes among editors about what should be placed in the section. The only benefit is that it make more clear that something is controversial. IMO, the text needs do this anyway so I do not see the need.
Any luck finding any reliable sources with information about Paul Weyrich religious background? Speeches, CV, section in program/brochure. Depending on where and how they are published might be reliable source. FloNight 01:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I know that I could probably get him to write something on the record about his attitudes on the subject, but he hasn't addressed the Dominionism charge per se.
One thing I find a bit silly is that Jim68sch says on one hand that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox aren't part of the Christian Right on one side, yet here he insists Weyrich's a domonionist. Makes no sense.
Also, what good is WP:WTA if people claim they're free to ignore it? That's basically what Jim68sch said in the Dominionism talk page

because it objected to it's being ignored in one or two sections. --Pravknight 04:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell is Jim68? 01:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Jim62sch. Guy 09:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Passive Voice

No, the paragraph is not passive voice. If English still had a middle voice, it would be similar to a middle voice, but for the purpose functionality it is active. This is in contrast to Sanskrit and Greek in which the passive voice assumed the form of the middle while keeping the meaning of the passive. See, I too edit professionally -- quite a lot, in fact -- and I'm also a linguist. Now that we've bored each other with our CV's, see the example of "passive" voice I left on the talk page.

As for "that and which and the comma" (book title?), what you nooted is indeed the conventional usage, but such usage is now falling into disuse -- along with so many other good rules. BTW, I have a copy of Strunk and White's "Elements of Style," thanks. In fact, the most recent addition now allows "they" as a pronoun to reference a single person -- much to my chagrin, I must admit. •Jim62sch• 20:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm used to the AP Manual of Style, which uses other conventions. I stand corrected, but I still think it could be a bit tighter. --Pravknight 20:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been temporarily blocked from editing.


Pravknight, based on your recent contentious edits to Paul Weyrich article and talk [11] [12] [13] I blocked you for 24 hours. These edits follow your continued pattern of adding questionable material to articles, making inflammatory remarks about your fellow editors, and abusing content and warning templates. I have fully reviewed your contributions to Wikipedia and see many problems. See RFC for more details of problematic behavior. [14] During the next 24 hours please review the problems noted on your RFC and return with a new commitment to edit Wikipedia collaboratively based on policy/guidelines. Suggestion: Due to your close relationship with Paul Weyrich, I strongly recommend that you limit your editing to the talk page of his article. This appears to be the underlying basis for your problems. FloNight 05:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Pravknight, your behaviour is unacceptable. Now is a good time to stop. Guy 09:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Contentious. My backside. I just know unethical editing when I see it, and there hasn't been any effort to involve me in the editing process, and instead it has degenerated into one huge polemic.
Gimme a break. The only problem here is I have been bold and stood up to POV editing. --Pravknight 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of protection tags

Please don't remove protection tags. The protection is still in force regardless (only an admin can unlock it); the tag lets others know that the page is protected. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You are generous

Hey, my buddy. Thanks for your kind words. Can we talk strategy here for a second?

Would you be satisfied in your work here if the "Party" as you call them would leave your additions to pages for balance if you gave them only Due weight and made them in the form (Scholar1 said that POV1 is true) to be presented along with the POV of the Party line? --Rednblu 22:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The only way to beat a cabal is with a cabal. FeloniousMonk has hounded me with his cabal for well over a month because I threaten his POV pushing. If you know anyone else who could join us, let me know.--Pravknight 23:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I understand. And you may be right. But I don't think the problem could be solved by organizing an opposing cabal. Wouldn't it be better to develop some NPOV rules that would actually protect quality and NPOV in pages?

If you could state an NPOV rule that would be fair to FM's POV and to your POV, how would you state that rule? --Rednblu 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Good for you! Nice find on the article. So we are questioning some of the dynamics of majority consensus are we? When you wrote me just now, I was just in the middle of a delicious rereading of Federalist #10--thinking along some of the lines that several of us are apparently--where Madison concludes that for the good of the cause there has to be some Constitutional block on what the majority consensus can do--including what a religious majority consensus can do. I have observed your difficulties with the Party line. It has some of the pattern of a witch hunt. I can see clearly the faulty majority consensus of complaints in the witch hunt. But I keep asking myself, "why does the witch keep insisting on the right to be a witch?" Does that make sense? You are a good man, and a keen intellect. I would hate to lose you as a sounding board. I have used your suggestions on how to measure "Due weight." Very interesting ideas. Be careful. Be cool. Let's remember that we are writing the best encyclopedia that there is. And nobody in the history of this universe has ever gotten as close as Wikipedia to what a storehouse of human knowledge should be. So because putting down the ideas of people in one NPOV place has never been done before, everyone goes through intense and unknown passions and irrational reactions. There are reasons, it makes sense. Be as polite as you are. If you need to rave a personal attack at someone, do it to me instead of them. If it is really intense, send me an email. I will understand. They won't. We are writing the first and best encyclopedia ever written. So it is worth it. Stay alive and well. And thank you. --Rednblu 07:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Yes. I saw. You made an argument, and you got back an ad hominem fallacy. And that kind of kindergarten reply is effective with a low IQ audience. Do you feel you got points scored against you? I don't know. It depends on the audience doesn't it. In a Presidential debate, if the other candidate gave back a Bronx cheer, for whose side would that score points? It depends on how you handle that moment before the cameras. And it depends on the IQ of the audience. I would say just stay calm. Just let the moment stand for what it is. Remember NPOV, NPA, and all the other right things that actually do work if given time. We are building an NPOV encyclopedia and some people have a very difficult time accepting the responsibilities of NPOV. Sometimes it is tough dealing with a [ . . .]. The urge to strike back and organize the dog pack is strong in our genes. Resist temptation.  :)) Send me an email if it gets bad, ok? --Rednblu 23:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Yep. --Rednblu 23:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Wow! Very interesting. Nice touches. --Rednblu 08:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul Weyrich

As a personal friend of Paul Weyrich, and one who view is evidently coloured by strong support for him, you should not be editing that article. Your past editing pattern indicates an intent to remove anything negative however well sourced. Long-standing consensus is that people with a vested interest in the content of an article should not edit it. Please restrict yourself to proposing improvements on the article's Talk page, and respect the fact that your admiration for the subject is not universally shared, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have already been blocked once for tendentious edits to this article, future blocks may be of escalating duration. Guy 06:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious edits. Really. The tedentious edits are on the part of FeloniousMonk, et. alia. I wouldn't feel a need to intervene if my perspective was included and taken seriously. The reliance upon ad hominem arguments from a radical organization such as TheocracyWatch cheapens Wikipedia's overall credibility. Besides, I missed the block because I stayed away for a few days.
The issue is the non-neutral language in use that enters into the argument against Weyrich, instead of discussing the issue and providing reliable sources. Perhaps I approach this with a newspaper mentality, but

sources that rely upon ad hominem or strawman arguments without providing ######## proof of their assertions shouldn't be permitted on this or any other article for that matter.

If I know what he believes, and I know that information is factually inaccurate, then I have a right to stand up for the facts. Rules can change and consensuses can change.
The problem here isn't my behavior, but that of those editors and admins who intend to transform the bio into an anti-Weyrich polemic. That violates the spirit of NPOV, etc. I don't have a problem with criticism if it's in a neutral voice and the issue is discussed and not entered into. That's the problem. If you want me to leave this alone, meet me half-way because I'm a reasonable man. I just want the polemical tone eliminated in a professional manner.
Do you believe that polemical language conforms with the NPOV rule, and how is it that only allowing anti-Weyrich language in the article is a neutral point of view? That sounds awfully one-sided and non-NPOV to me.
Additionally, I am not above writing articles about people's criticisms of my personal friends, and I have done so myself. Take a look at the following link, it's pretty scathing article I wrote about a boyhood friend of mine.
I care about integrity above relationships, but when I see a lack of integrity in anything I cringe.
Including me in this ensures that a biased one-sided view doesn't emerge. Something I would hope you would believe in, but I doubt it. The problem is with the Left-wing editors who push their POV around, not with me. Nothing will convince me otherwise. I go with my gut, and my gut says that I need to stand up for what I believe is right. If you don't like that it's not my problem.--Pravknight 14:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting how it's everybody else who is out of step. The problem here appears to be in general that your close involvement with the subject leaves you with no apparent objectivity; worse, you appear to mistake your own bias for neutrality. Guy 20:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hostility does not equal objectivity. Or does it? How can you be objective? Hostility is a POV. Is it not? Who are you to judge me? Read this article about another friend that I wrote, then ask yourself what it says about my character and my commitment to objectivity as a reporter.[15]
I'm a journalist, so I have to step outside myself all of the time. This guy has been a friend of mine longer than I have known Mr. Weyrich. Do you despise Mr. Weyrich so much that you can't see the middle ground?
In the end it comes down to choice of words ad hominiem fallacies vs. facts. Take your pick.
If something is true I hold my nose and live with it, but I recoil when the only thing there is an interpretation and feelings. Stop lecturing me about my biases, and take a look at your own.--Pravknight 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
So: on one side we have several highly experienced editors and admins with no apparent connection to the subject; on the other we have you, with an admitted connection to the subject, and one of the resident trolls who has waded in primarily to pursue his vendetta against another Wikipedian. Of course it's possible that you're the one who's right, but it is rather unlikely. Guy 21:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I was going to reply on FloNight's talk to your comment there, but it's probably better here, on balance. Once again with that comment you make it plain that you mistake your own bias for neutrality. FloNight is perfectly capable of working with editors who have religious faith (FN has no apparent problems with people like JoshuaZ and myself, both of whoom are believers); where we do have a problem is with certain fundamentalists asserting that any documentation of the contentious nature of fundamentalism or the controversial actions of fundamentalists is down to religious bias. For example, you need to set aside your own personal views on homosexuality and recognise that in a modern democratic society queer-bashing is viewed as unacceptable, whatever its basis. The problem with Weyrich is that he appears to assert that any bias is fine as long as its his, and that is reflected in the article. He is a controversial figure and his public persona is to a great extent dominated by his strong (minority) views, asserted as immutable fact; he actively courts controversy.
Nor is reaction to his fundamentalist beliefs necessarily motivated by secularist bias. As a practising Christian, former church steward in the Methodist tradition and current member of the Anglican communion in a leadership role within my church, I, too, find much of what goes on in fundamentalist churches deeply disturbing, in the same way that moderate Muslims find the actions of Muslim fundamentalists disturbing. This is, of course, a philosophical argument, but you would do well to think long and hard about who Christ meant whith those allegories about Pharisees (numerous epistles of Paul make it pretty plain to me that this is not about "them", it's about "us"). The Gospels teach us that our judgment is not to be relied on, we should trust in God; if we disagree with someone then we should either live in harmony or state our disagreement and walk away: Scriptural support for most of the more extreme views presented, such as queer-bashing, comes almost exclusively from the Old Covenant, which was replaced by the New Covenant. Anyway, that's a roundabout way of saying that, no, the dispute is not about religious bias, other than yours. I've told you before that you need to be careful not to mistake your own bias for neutrality. Ignoring RfCs is a very bad idea - sure, there will be some comments in there which are founded on personal animus, but there are also fair points in there and sincere attempts to point out where you are going wrong. In the end, the less you make people care by your attitude, the greater the likelihood that we will simply give up on you and ban you from the project. I've received several requests to do that, and I'm not far off acceding right now, not because of your tendentious editing but because of your steadfast refusal to address the fact that several editors have identified problems with your behaviour. Do you onestly not see any fault in what you have done? Guy 10:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Gay theology is heresy, period. Comparing Christian traditionalism on sexual issues with people who blow themselves up or who believe in using the sword is shear ignorance. I'm a traditionalist Catholic, and I regard Liberal "Christians" as really being nothing but secularists in Christian drag.
I see no fault in anything that I have done except for dissenting from the Left-wing groupthink of Wikipedia. So, is it that only Lefties are allowed to edit on Wikipedia? Perhaps, are you scared of people who don't share your POV? All I have to say is just grow up.
I have studied Eastern Orthodox theology for years, and all that I can say is Liberals haven't a clue of what Christ meant about everything because they twist the scriptures to agree with their own egos. There is no such thing as a Liberal Christian, only a Liberal.--Pravknight 23:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool it, my friends, please. Why do you respond like this? It is in our nature to ban from our community any upstart that does not bow to the consensus. Apparently, we inherited this social mechanism from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. So consequently our urge is strong with us to ban the upstart who does not bow to the consensus. Why can we not just listen--and then bow silently to the consensus? --Rednblu 18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Mediation Cabal request

Hi Pravknight. Your request to the Mediation Cabal for assistance has now been forwarded to the Association of Member's Advocates (AMA). Basically, you will be assigned an advocate who will work with you but also those you have entered into conflict with to work towards an acceptable conclusion for all of you. You will however need to fill out a request for assistance yourself at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance since this includes questions that can only be answered by you personally. If you require any help with this or any other part of the process, please do not hesitate to contact me either on my talk page or by email - methods to contact me are shown on my userpage. I wish you every success in solving the problem you have been having. Wikiwoohoo talk 18:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Your allegations of harrassment are baseless, the harassment seems to originate with you. Your edits are tendentious and your assertion of left-wing bias says more about your POV than about the articles. You are blocked for 48 hours and if you continue your behaviour you will probably be blocked for longer. Guy 22:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked IP 68.45.161.241 for 48 hours after Pravknight used it to evade block. [16]FloNight 03:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Guy, explain to me something. Are you aware the Liberal perspective about the Christian right is a minority position in the United States?
Me harrassing. How? Okay, what does my verifiable assertion of Left-wing bias say about my POV? Does it say that I'm some sort of redneck, ignorant or something like that?
Maybe Liberal opinions are the majority where you live or go to church, but in the larger picture they are a small minority. 1 billion Christians believe the way I do and a around 100 million Christians in the United States do too. Does that make them an insignificant minority?
I think its sad that Wikipedia is threatened by perspectives that go against its orthodoxy, which is decidedly Liberal and decidedly secular.

Banning me shows one thing: a fear of opinions different from one's own. --Pravknight 03:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Community sanctions

Hello Pravknight

There is a discussion about community sanctions that might be put in place to curb your disruptive editing. See the discussion here [17] and here [18]. If you want to comment, please make note of it here and I will make arrangements for you to be unblocked to respond on these pages. The one condition is that you agree to address the issues at hand and not make personal attacks toward other editors or admins. Take care, --FloNight 14:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it this way Flo, everyone has talked past me here for months. It is absolutely frustrating to have everything I contribute get labeled as "disruptive." Disruptive, how? Tedentious, how? I sure as heck don't feel that I have done so because as far as I'm concerned I've acted in good faith trying to make Wikipedia the best it can be.

If you want to explain the rules to me and how I can be who I am on Wikipedia and stay within the rules, I'm all ears. I just want FM to leave me alone. How would you feel if you were new on a site and everything you did was declared illegal by people who disagree with you when there is a pretence to neutrality without any explanation?

If you have done such a good job explaining everything to me, then why do I feel that I've been ganged up on without just cause? I know a lot of people who feel that Wikipedia has a definite bias when it comes to politics and religion that's not very positive.

Why not listen to me? What do you all have to lose? My faith is the core of my being, and it's who I am. Do you expect me to junk my worldview to contribute to Wikipedia? Have any of you stopped to consider how your own worldviews contributes to how you interpret the rules?

Do you care how ordinary readers view Wikipedia? You probably do, or else you wouldn't be here. The fact is traditionally minded Christians number over 1 billion people on this planet, and close to 100 million in the United States alone. That's not some tiny crackpot minority out there. If I feel attacked by Wikipedia, or feel that my POV is misrepresented, how do you think they feel reading Wikipedia?

Let's face it here, factually, the perspective represented in the articles in the Dominionism series, from my perspective, seem to overemphasize the views of a small minority in the United States regarding the Christian Right.

Why should my work be reversed when I elaborate on the Dominionist's POV, which BTW, I don't agree with, for the sake of ensuring fairness. Or when FM, removes something I wrote from a reputable Evangelical ministry critical of Christian Reconstructionist theology? He tells me it's false or that I'm POV pushing. HOW? I cited the sources, which are widely respected in Evangelical circles.

What am I supposed to think when 2/3s of the article is devoted to the opponents of the Christian Right, who by the way are a minority of the total American population. Bush won twice because of their support and elected the GOP to Congress and a majority of the statehouses.

Katherine Yurica's and TheocracyWatch's POV represents a MINORITY of the population. I have no idea where you live. Perhaps their perspectives are popular among your friends, but they don't represent the larger picture. How is writing from the majority perspective POV pushing or giving undue weight to my perspective, considering it's the perspective of just a little over 50 percent of the American population.

I suggested banning partisanship as part of the NPOV rule and Consensus rule, but FeloniousMonk reverted my changes that had been made by a previous editor. When he does that, what am I supposed to think about his motives? I don't know him, and he hasn't exactly been the most friendly person to me since day one.

Have you ever stopped to think, it's not what you say, but how you say it? The tone from yourself and the other admins has kept me on the defensive, and what am I supposed to think, other than what I've said ad nauseam? I feel attacked, not consulted with.

So far, I feel that no one has explained anything about their perspectives to me except for what comes across on my screen in my mind as person attack. Things like WP:POV, WP:POINT etc., that get put up when I feel that I have done nothing wrong comes across as a personal attack instead of.

Could you consider rephrasing it this way, or this is how you should be doing this. That's constructive in my view.

Instead of hurling rules at me, the interpretations of which I disagree with, tell me why you think I stepped over the line and your rationale. I react positively to reasoned explanations, not summary reversals of my work, accusations of POV pushing, etc., without explanation.

Maybe you've been at this for awhile, so you take things for granted. I simply go to the rulebook and fail to see where all of you are getting your opinions from. Interpretation my friend. I want to understand your interpretation, and why you interpret the rules the way you do.

Every time I do anything, from asking people what they think about the rules, or my ideas for improving Wikipedia, I get written up on this RfC. Flo, please don't take this personally, 90 percent of the time, I simply forget to login, not thinking there is any problem with my editing without logging in. This accusation of sockpuppetry against me is baseless.

I wish I didn't feel that there was a partisan atmosphere here, but the behavior here hasn't been conducive to what I see as mature discussions.


Why can't you accept my comments as constructive criticism in the other direction, instead of taking them personally? If people here were a bit more reasonable with me in explaining why they think what they think,instead of treating me like a threat there wouldn't be a problem. Explain that one to me adult to adult. I get sick of being accused of this or having everything I do put up for an RfC. What am I supposed to think about your motives when everything I write gets labeled as POV pushing, etc.

You tell me to add things to the articles that balance things out. I do that, yet FM constantly reverses everything I do, attacks me personally, etc. If that were you, how would you feel? Try putting yourself into my shoes for a change?--Pravknight 03:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

This [19] is a personal attack and is unacceptable. You urgently need to review your editing style and start considering the possibility that, as noted by seevral independent editors and admins, the problem is with you not with some nebulous left-wing conspiracy on Wikipedia - an assertion which is plainly absurd. For personal attacks and block evasion I have lengthened your block to one week. Guy 09:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is just a bit silly that you can't see your own biases. Why can't you see your own biases? Or had you considered the fact a good majority of Wikipedia editors share a Left of center POV by Jimmy Wales' own admission? The bias is hardly in a conservative direction, or even neutral. How can you say there isn't a decided hostility to conservative or traditional points of view on Wikipedia
Wikipedia's NPOV rule is meaningless, considering this fact. Explain to me why you think my observation of fact is absurd? Wikipedia isn't a reliable source because this fact, and if you hadn't been reading students in colleges in America, at least, are discouraged from citing it because of serious factual errors and political biases that pass for the truth.
The problem here IS NOT with me.
Guy, I wish you could see how the world views Wikipedia, and it's not good. Wikipedia's NPOV rule is symbolic, and from what I have seen no one here follows it. I have read all of the rules,and I have made every effort to follow them. Do everyone a favor and declare that Wikipedia is a Left-wing site. e.g., a blog. It comes down to an ideosyncratic application of the rules to fit your worldviews.
FM writes for the Democratic Underground, Jim68sch has confessed to having Marxist sentiments and you have confessed to being sympathetic to homosexuality. So, how can you say that there isn't a Left of center bias on Wikipedia? I am mentioning the fact I Googled FM's handle, and found posts under his handle on the decidedly Liberal/Socialist Democratic Underground because it shows where his political biases lay.

How then can he be anymore objective than I? FM said I weakened his viewpoint that Dominionism was a threat or a problem by adding the viewpoints of self-professed Christian Reconstructionists to the Dominionism article. How can you say that he's neutral anymore than I am neutral. My beef with that particular article is that it seems to stereotype all conservative American Christians as wanting to replace the U.S. Constitution with a neo-Puritan theocracy. Wikipedia lacks the same quality as Encyclopedia Britannica when it comes to maintaining a non-partisan perspective? I consider myself knowledgeable about the Christian right, at least the Catholic faction therof, and I object to what I see as the blatant stereotyping of conservative Christians. The fact Chip Berlet or Katherine Yurica are considered "experts" furthers my perception of bias. Mr. Berlet, I will concede, is more factual than say Ms. Yurica, but he paints with a very broad brush that ignores the diversity of the Christian right. Their writings are riddled with strawman attacks, guilt by association, glaring generalizations, etc. The series of articles on "Dominionism" are riddled with factual errors and POV. Is it NPOV to limit the content to a single POV where only those who share a single POV are granted "expert" status? I will leave Wikipedia alone for awhile, and perhaps limit myself to editing on the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox-oriented pages. When it comes to politics, Wikipedia is of limited informative value. --Pravknight 15:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You win

After giving it some thought, I have decided to back off. Considering that I don't really have much of a chance of convincing you that things are way off, I will stay away from pages where I stand a chance of running into you and your friends. I informed Mr. Weyrich of the problems with his biography, so I will leave it to him to deal with WP:OFFICE if he so desires. When it comes to politics and the social sciences, Wikipedia has a decided postmodern liberal/socialist slant, and I can't win, so I will leave it alone.--Pravknight 17:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Sarum-Mass.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarum-Mass.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|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 have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Sarum-Mass2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarum-Mass2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|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 have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Sarum-Mass3.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarum-Mass3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|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 have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)