User talk:Pundit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pundit's Talk Page - speak, friend, and enter! :) Whenever you comment here, please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. If you don't want to use the add a new message link, please add all new comments to the bottom of the page. Let's both try to be civil, and refrain from personal attacks.

---

2007 archive

---

[edit] Brick Breaking

I will try to find another NPOV wording for that sentence. (I can tell you for a fact it does exist tho). However that image is the most pathetic excuse for breaking I have ever seen!--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate Thai

This source appears to be a bad link: [1] It doesn't show any kind of relevant information. Also, your other sources are still bad. See the talk page. Zenwhat (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote an email to the editors of Cannabis Culture about a number of factual inaccuracies in their articles about Buddhism, beyond what I described to you. The most blatant were the "haikus" which the editor admitted were not haikus. Their responses to the rest of the issues I brought up were extremely weak. Please see this thread on their forum. [2] At one point, one of their editors says, "Cannabis is good for you." Hence, they are not reliable source. See their claims about marijuana in that forum, then compare it the article on Health issues and effects of cannabis.

Similarly, NRA newsletters would NOT be a reliable source either, on most facts relating to gun control, because they represent a political group with a certain agenda to serve. And this edit seems like weasel words:

at least according to the author signed as "DJ Short", in a publication in "Cannabis Culture magazine"'. Zenwhat (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're referring to the Wikipedia's definition of weasel words. My edit was, in fact, an attempt to satisfy your critique of leaving the preceding statement as "objective", by only referred to the publication. My intent was to emphasize that this statement is of the author of the article. Feel free to delete the fragment of the sentence you cite above, if for whatever reason you find it not objective (but clearly it has nothing to do with weasel words).

Per your comments on the magazine's forum - while I admire your passion for accuracy and your will to educate them, the editor's response seems quite reasonable. After all, in many cases they are referring somebody's words (in interviews, books, etc.), and they did admit the haikus were not "real" (although you should realize, that all haikus in English are to some extent fake. There is only a traditionalized form of translation and writing them in Englih, but it is pretty far from the original Japanese versification for language reasons, and also there are so-called contemporary free-form haikus, which are close to free verse poetry. But I don't think it matters that much).

Credibility of this magazine as a source is, in my view, very limited and I would not learn haiku structure from them. I do believe, though, that if there is any magazine that can professionally write something about different kinds and strains of marijuana distributed 20 years ago, that'll probably be them. NRA publications also have limited credibility - but if I wanted to know about gun subtleties, I would assume them to be a useful source. It is their core business, after all - and while being ignorant about haikus will not take readers away from a cannabis magazine, mistakes and slips in articles on marijuana actually may. Being accurate about existence of strains is almost the only thing they really have to be truthful about (and of course you are right that they quite likely will minimize and belittle the medically proved negative effects of cannabis intake). Pundit|utter 23:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I referred to it as weasel words because you seem to be aware that it's a largely unreliable source, but tried to avoid WP:RS by saying "at least according to unreliable source X." If a magazine is going to demonstrate poor scholarship by making inaccurate assertions about haikus and Buddhism -- all other claims are just as unreliable. Good scholars are accurate, in general. Bad scholars are inaccurate, in general. This isn't a matter of ignorance of Buddhism on their part, but poor scholarship because nearly every article on their site essentially involves scrambling together various unreliable sources, in order to make an argument that supports legalization. It's political propaganda. We can take this to mediation if you'd like. Zenwhat (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to mistakenly take the magazine to be scholarly. They are not scholars at all. It is, at best, a pop-cultural magazine, with particular focus on marijuana. I don't expect them to be accurate about haikus, honestly. But a versological slip is hardly a proof that they don't know about marijuana strains. By analogy - if NRA magazine published a sonnet and called it a haiku, it wouldn't make them unreliable about guns. Pundit|utter 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Their claims about Buddhism are more than a "versological slip." I discussed the magazine with other Buddhists, about the list of false claims, and there wasn't even any suggestion by any of them that the magazine's assertions about Buddhism "might" be correct. It appears to be a self-published source by amateur writers with no educated in botany or pharmacology. Sources frequently prone to factual errors are unreliable sources, regardless of what those factual errors might be related to. Part of WP:RS is scholarship. See scholarship. Zenwhat (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I cut out your RfC from the article and added it to the discussion. I cut out somebody's (yours?) template from there to add a new one - I hope it is ok, as it didn't work previously. Pundit|utter 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The first time I put the RFC template up I did it improperly, forgetting to follow the second step to put it on the talk page. Will it be listed now? Zenwhat (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec. Nevermind. You did something different than what I thought. I thought you altered the main page.

The description of the dispute is supposed to be short and neutral. "Is Cannabis culture a reliable source?" is short and neutral.

"credibility of a niche marijuana magazine" and "A dispute on credibility of sources in an unusual topic (drugs), uncertainty whether a niche marijuana magazine (although popular), which has been proved to be inaccurate about haiku versing, can be used as a credible source of information on strains of cannabis used in the 60ties and 70ties." is not. Zenwhat (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, your own opinion and the opinion of your colleague Buddhists, whom you kindly offer to consult, are not entirely falling under credible sources of information neither. However, I gave you Such, or such, or such, or such links to chew on the issue of drugs and Buddhism and to at least show you that the issue is not as obvious as you seem to believe and it is not only the magazine you criticize who claims that some time ago some Buddhists were using cannabis (although, as I said, this may be totally wrong - but the idea is out there and not only supported by this one magazine). Pundit|utter 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They are Buddhist monks who have spent years studying Buddhism in Asia, learning Sanskrit and Pali so that they can read the Sutras in their original language. They are not reliable sources by Wikipedia's definition, but they are reliable sources in reality that can be used to clearly debunk "Cannabis Culture" magazine as a reliable source, according to Wikipedia's definition. You continue to cite such vastly unreliable sources that I find it very difficult to assume good faith, but I will continue to try. At the very least, you seem to misunderstand what WP:RS means. For instance, about this source, one monk being arrested for growing marijuana is not proof that all Buddhist monks support the use of marijuana. See Hasty generalization. A1b2c3.com and "THC Ministry Amsterdam" appear to be self-published. Zenwhat (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove or disprove the use of marijuana by Buddhists. All I'm saying is that it is extremely easy to find information about Buddhists using cannabis and it does not make sense to blame one particular magazine for a cultural notion (perhaps an urban legend) that is already out there. But of course there are also many published articles and books on the subject, such as this or this or this or this or this. In spite of what your friends may say from their own experience, there are reliable sources to prove the historical use of marijuana in Buddhism. Therefore it is very premature to claim that the magazine is totally unreliable, basing on the info they give on Buddhists and marijuana. They may be wrong, but the plethora of publications gives them good reasons to support this view. Pundit|utter 00:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea that "Buddhists smoke marijuana" is not a widespread cultural belief. It is a fringe theory on the internet, by self-published pseudoscholars. That's what your sources prove. Your actions clearly violate WP:FRINGE and I suspect you know this because of your experience with Wikipedia. You don't seem to use the same ridiculously unreliable sources when editing articles on martial arts. The more attention that Chocolate Thai gets, the more likely it is for such ridiculous sources to be deleted, if the article itself isn't removed outright. I will not discuss the issue with you any further until we receive a neutral third party to give their opinion on the matter. Zenwhat (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm, as I admitted, not an expert - my only knowledge about the subject comes from google. The links I gave you above come from the first 10 results of a search in http://www.scholar.google.com which is my typical resource for more scholarly works, although you seem to disprove them as a whole. I assure you that both in martial arts or e.g. RPG edits we sometimes refer to specialized magazines. I'm not saying that Cannabis Culture is a superb source, all I'm trying to point is that if the article and its ilk are to be kept in Wikipedia, the only sources of some credibility will be like this magazine. In no way was I trying to upset you and if I did, I apologize. Pundit|utter 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply because the sub-domain is scholar.google.com does not make the reference scholarly or reliable. Google apparently lists sources indiscriminately based on algorithms -- it's not reviewed by editors. And so, there are a substantial amount of fringe theories on scholar.google.com. One example I'm aware of offhand is works by Austrian economists, a heterodox school of economics. [3] You will find works on there arguing for Anarcho-Capitalism. And surely you don't agree that's "reliable"? Also, you haven't said this yet, but just in case you're thinking it: To demonstrate that I'm not simply invoking false credentials, I strongly encourage you to find any Buddhist community online and ask them about the claims made by Cannabis Culture. There are plenty of Buddhist monks and nuns at [e-Sangha who would be happy to clarify how Cannabis Culture's statements are unreliable. And again, this is relevant to Cannabis Culture's credibility, as WP:RS states that sources are unreliable if they're prone to factual error, with no caveats. Whatever those factual errors might be, poor scholarship is poor scholarship. Zenwhat (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But you are 100% right that there are contradictory sources not only in scholar.google.com, but also in top-tier academic journals as well. All I'm saying is that a claim of historical use of marijuana in some Buddhist communities long time ago can be supported by legitimate publications (just as anarcho-capitalism in economic theory, although economy is perhaps a bit more arbitrary than history). By the way, I don't think anybody so far claimed that marijuana smoking is a widespread practice among Buddhists nowadays.

The existence of contradictory sources, even in academia, does not overrule WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. Also, I strongly disagree that "economy is perhaps a bit more arbitrary than history," since both are soft sciences and social sciences that rely on similar methodologies. I'd also say it's probably the other way around. I am particularly skeptical of mainstream historianism, considering the fact that mainstream historianism seems swayed by religious sophistry and political correctness. See the historicity of Jesus to see what I'm talking about. They claim Jesus exists by using the "gospels" as a source. What absurdity! Bad historians like Karen Armstrong demonstrate the horrible state that historianism is in. Economics does not have this same problem and I think it's because economists argue over what is, not what was, which makes them less prone to that kind of sophistry. What it basically comes down to is that historians rarely ever attempt to be objective or neutral, but try to seek evidence in order to give content to amusing narratives. Zenwhat (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fringe rule is about marginality being presented as mainstream, or at least a contesting theory. I understand why you brought it up here, although I don't share your view (but I don't want to dispute whether Buddhist monks really smoke marijuana some time in the past - I just don't care, I don't think even if they did it changes anything). NOR, on the other hand, is irrelevant in our discussion - I didn't present any of my research to support my view, and the only time you did was when you referred to your friends, but it was not a research-like statement. Per narratives in economics and your apparent interest in the subject - you may find this book interesting. Pundit|utter 03:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And you've been appealing to marginality, regularly. You aren't citing a book or journal on mainstream botany or the mainstream media. You're saying, "Hey, look at all of these self-published websites I found!! And here are some books on Google too!!" It's precisely for this reason that I think it's ridiculous to continue this discussion and want to wait for a neutral party to give a third opinion. Zenwhat (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is because I'm not proving something is true or not, I'm just proving the presence of an idea in the discourse. BTW, calling books and scholarly journals/conferences marginal is a typical POV, especially when considered the fact that you have not provided ANY (credible or not) sources to support your view. Pundit|utter 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain to me how this sentence only presents chocolate thai as a "term used in discourse" and not an actual strain of marijuana.

Chocolate Thai is popular colloquial term[1] for a Cannabis Sativa strain of the 1960s and 1970s.

It doesn't. That sentence asserts that the strain "chocolate thai" actually exists. Also, now that you acknowledge you don't know whether this term represents a real strain of marijuana but is just a "popular colloquial term", it should be deleted, per Wikipedia is not a dictionary for slang. Zenwhat (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, "popular colloquial term" is weasel words for "slang." Zenwhat (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zenwhat and thanks for your comment. When talking about discourse I'm referring to the idea of marijuana being historically used in Buddhism (the topic of our discussion in a number of our recent post exchanges). This idea made you challenge an otherwise possibly valid source of information, although I gave you plenty of resources that support the challenged view presented in the magazine (possibly wrong, but still present in the discourse). In the same time you have not provided even a single source to support your view.

I don't mind your change of colloquial into slang, it is a good edit. But in the future please, stop using defamatory terms to describe other editor's contributions, unless you mean what you write, while assuming good faith. So far you called my edits weasel words twice (perhaps you should read the definition first), not adhering to the NPOV, promoting Fringe theories, and violating NOR rule. Once you even reverted my edit so hastily and without checking what it actually was, that seconds later you brought it back. In the same time I carefully refrained from labeling your edits as any violations of rules (Preserve information being the minor one), and I really did my best not to revert your edits based on the info from the magazine we currently discuss.

In spite of the RfC you keep editing the articles. From your user page it is clear that you made deleting Chocolate Thai article your personal goal (it is listed under "to dos"), which for a casual reader may make an impression that you decided the article has to disappear, no matter what the community's decision is and/or what are the constructive edits of other contributors - don't you think that reaching a consensus is a better way to do it, than decide ahead? The fact that you so violently reacted to the information from Cannabis Culture about Buddhist monks in the past may suggests that you took offense to the magazine (you actually called their article offensive).

At this stage I kindly request that you refrain from editing Chocolate Thai at all and I will do the same. We all have our editorial biases and it is only natural that we reinstate our positions in any discussion we already entered. Thus it may do good to Wikipedia if we both take a break from Chocolate Thai. I highly respect your other edits and contributions, and I very much appreciate your good intentions, so let's switch to something else for a while. Pundit|utter 15:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't complain about me accusing you of violating policy -- and then in turn accuse me of violating policy by doing that. It works both ways. You didn't need to write those paragraphs above. I mentioned above that your arguments don't seem genuine. At the very least, even if you're being sincere, the arguments you're making are extremely illogical. You've continually revised your argument in reaction to my criticism. I say, "These sources just prove the existence of a slang term. Delete the article, per WP:Not a dictionary." You said, "But wait, I found reliable sources!" I said, "Those aren't reliable sources," citing a number of cases where they've blatantly gotten their facts wrong. You said, "They may have been wrong about Buddhism and haikus, but they might be right about weed!" I cited the fact that the editor claimed, "Marijuana is good for you." which contradicts the sources cited in Health effects of cannabis. That editor was also unable to provide a scholarly summary of cannabis research, but instead has to rely on obscure studies to prove fringe claims that haven't received scientific consensus. Your response, then, was to cite a number of other unreliable sources from Google to try to give weight to their claims. I pointed out the fact that those sources are also unreliable and you say, "I'm only trying to prove that there's a popular colloquial term!!" And so, we're back where we started: Chocolate Thai is just a slang term with no actual botanists or pharmacologists claiming it exists, just self-published sources on the internet and pop-culture magazines written by poor scholars.

There's also your attempt at framing the RFC debate to consider by diminishing the idea that it's a reliable source in the lead, through calling Cannabis Culture a "niche" magazine which only got it wrong on haikus. The fact that I've argued with you this long, without starting an edit war, and am going to wait for mediation means that I'm fully in accordance with WP:Assume Good Faith.

I put the RFC tag back in, being unaware that RFC tags belong on talk pages. So, in addition with the rest of the stuff above, your removal of the RFC tag from the front page appeared to be vandalism, at the time. After realizing RFC tags don't belong on articles, I took it out myself.

I don't take offense to the magazine's claims , simply their bad research and the fact that they spread misinformation, and I did not react "violently." Preserve information does not apply to inaccurate statements, because technically they aren't "information" and therefore shouldn't be "preserved." I have no editorial biases. I was honest when I said I support legalization of marijuana.

Furthermore, you've continually appealed to the possibility that claims made by unreliable sources such as Cannabis Culture "might" be true. The standard in Wikipedia is NOT truth, but WP:Verifiability. The claims made by Cannabis Culture and authors randomly aggregated by Google may be true, but if they are not verifiable, they do not belong on Wikipedia.

Lastly, I just noticed above that you attacked me for being unable to cite any sources to support my view. Please see Burden of proof and Negative proof. Simply because I cannot prove that Chocolate Thai does NOT exist, does not mean that it does.

I will not "take a break" from Chocolate Thai. I will, however, wait for RFC and go through every step of dispute resolution until this matter is resolved. Zenwhat (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of sources refers to the topic of our debate for the last 10+ posts, namely "Buddhists smoking marijuana in the long past", which was your main argument against Cannabis Culture. For this I've provided reliable scholarly resources, many satisfying the verifiability criteria at Wikipedia, while you have provided only your own words and an offer to consult your friends or Buddhist Internet fora.

I personally find this argument void and aside of the crux, while there are many points you can raise against this magazine - but you can't blame me for replying to your posts and not what you could have written.. Please, refrain from any further personal attacks. Calling my arguments extremely illogical or doubting my sincerity fall within this category. While you wrote that the article in the magazine was offensive, I think it is understandable that I assumed it was you who took this offense.

Per your argumentation above - you seem to randomly cross-interpret the arguments from several different discussions on:

1. Buddhism and marijuana
2. reliability of Cannabis Culture as a general source of information (including haikus, history, etc.)
3. reliability of Cannabis Culture as a specific source of information on the existence of cannabis strains

etc., so I really cannot understand what your point in these particular topics is, or in general on the subject now. I do hope, however, that by looking at the history page of the article you will at least notice that you made edits and reverts AFTER the RfC was posted, so your argument about not editing being a proof of good faith is void (while the good faith, on the other hand, is present I'm sure - I'm only referring to the argumentation, and not the fact).

I don't understand your simultaneous refusal to stop editing the article and agreement to abstain from editing and wait for third parties to jump in, but I hope that you will wait for other editors to help us in this dispute. For now I think we both may use some time in other places of Wikipedia calling our attention. Let me again express my high regard of your contributions to Wikipedia, in spite of our current discord. After all, our vivid discussion proves also that we both care about standards the the quality of information, although we can disagree in details. Pundit|utter 16:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of sources refers to the topic of our debate for the last 10+ posts, namely "Buddhists smoking marijuana in the long past", which was your main argument against Cannabis Culture. For this I've provided reliable scholarly resources, many satisfying the verifiability criteria at Wikipedia, while you have provided only your own words and an offer to consult your friends or Buddhist Internet fora.

I personally find this argument void and aside of the crux, while there are many points you can raise against this magazine - but you can't blame me for replying to your posts and not what you could have written.. Please, refrain from any further personal attacks. Calling my arguments extremely illogical or doubting my sincerity fall within this category. While you wrote that the article in the magazine was offensive, I think it is understandable that I assumed it was you who took this offense.

Per your argumentation above - you seem to randomly cross-interpret the arguments from several different discussions on:

1. Buddhism and marijuana
2. reliability of Cannabis Culture as a general source of information (including haikus, history, etc.)
3. reliability of Cannabis Culture as a specific source of information on the existence of cannabis strains

etc., so I really cannot understand what your point in these particular topics is, or in general on the subject now. I do hope, however, that by looking at the history page of the article you will at least notice that you made edits and reverts AFTER the RfC was posted, so your argument about not editing being a proof of good faith is void (while the good faith, on the other hand, is present I'm sure - I'm only referring to the argumentation, and not the fact).

I don't understand your simultaneous refusal to stop editing the article and agreement to abstain from editing and wait for third parties to jump in, but I hope that you will wait for other editors to help us in this dispute. For now I think we both may use some time in other places of Wikipedia calling our attention. Let me again express my high regard of your contributions to Wikipedia, in spite of our current discord. After all, our vivid discussion proves also that we both care about standards the the quality of information, although we can disagree in details. Pundit|utter 16:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling your arguments illogical, apparently non-genuine, and saying your actions violate policy is not a personal attack. Please feel free to take it up with Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts if you don't believe me.

Since you've suggested you know very little about Buddhism (as well as strains of Cannabis) and I do know enough about Buddhism to know that "Cannabis Culture" magazine's claims are frequently wrong, I recommended a reliable, easily-accessible source for you to verify the unreliability of Cannabis Culture magazine. Some other sources you could use. Try asking them at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science if there is an actual strain of cannabis -- recognized by botanists, not drug-dealers and users -- and you can ask Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities if the claims made by "Cannabis Culture" magazine about Buddhism are true.

When I said I refuse to leave the article, I didn't imply I'm going to start making contentious edits or edit-war over them. I will patiently wait for mediation and not make any edits until we receive an opinion from a third-party. What I will not do is abandon the article, simply so that it can remain as it is.

Lastly, I've noticed that you've revised some of your own comments on my talk page [4]. I appreciate the fact that you revised your comments to make them more civil, but it may be best if we simply wait for a mediator instead of continuing to debate. Zenwhat (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I posed the relevant questions above to the reference desk. See WP:Reference desk/Science#Is cannabis good for you? and WP:Reference desk/Humanities#Religious-use of cannabis by Buddhists. Zenwhat (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not my wish to report you, I'm just kindly requesting you to start to act in a civil manner.

You seem not to read my posts carefully. In no place have I written that I know little about Buddhism. I even confessed I participated in sangha meetings in Warsaw.

You have not provided even a single reliable source to prove that Buddhists in the times of yore did not use marijuana, while I gave a couple to prove they actually might have. If you assume that Buddhist forum is a reliable source of information on this subject, read again the policies on verifiability.

Per your last comment - again, you have not read my post carefully. I have not altered my comment in any way. However, in the process of transferring the post from my discussion to your discussion. I started replying here, because you seem to prefer keeping the whole dialogue in one place and you keep transferring my posts here. I don't condone this practice, but in respect for your preferences I posted my reply both here and in your discussion. I mistakenly have not copied the first two paragraphs (which as you can easily checked were posted in the primary reply on my talk page). Thus, to keep it consistent, a couple of seconds later I added the missing paragraph. I honestly don't see in what way could you have thought it was my intention to "revise the comment to make it more civil", in what way you believe it was or is not civil, but again - I'm not going to allow this discussion to become personal. I respect your work. I suggest we end this discussion for now. Pundit|utter 16:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on posting the debate. And PS: above "times of your" should be written as "times of yore". I hope you understand it is a spelling mistake. Pundit|utter 16:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I misread the diff. Also, I'm not saying the Buddhist forum is reliable as a reference for Wikipedia. I'm saying it's reliable to verify the lack of Cannabis Culture's reliability. Not the same thing. It's no different than me saying, "Please go ask User:Pundit about Action Research," in response to someone pushing heterodox claims about it. You can very easily contact experts who can verify Cannabis Culture's unreliability. You have refused to do so. Your refusal to do so is not in violation of any policy, but it's just bad editing because you're making wildly inaccurate claims, citing unreliable sources, and refusing to follow reasonable steps to verify those unreliable sources. Zenwhat (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the clarification. It is just that I still believe 2 scholarly articles and 3 books do prove that something may be right in Buddhists' use of marijuana hundreds of years ago, while I don't think that Buddhist forum is a good place to check this information (just as, per the analogy you used, it would not be reasonable to seek historical information about Jesus at Christian forums). But nevertheless, I appreciate the fact that we have an ardent (even sometimes close to personal), factual debate, rather than a revert war and I am grateful to you for your mature approach in this respect. Pundit|utter 17:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw you changed your vote. See my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolate Thai (2nd nomination). Also, see this [5]. Zenwhat (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop violating the decision made my the community (to merge) and the sources confirmed as valid in the RfC. As an experienced editor you must realize this constitutes an act of vandalism. Just don't do it. If you want to fight the battle to obliterate the information on Chocolate Thai, you're welcome, but do so according to the rules - consensus can be changed only by further discussion and debate. Pundit|utter 14:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

When you warned me about this the first time, I thought you were right. Then, I was in the process of posting this on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and after looking over the LAST AfD discussion, it occurred to me that there was no consensus that the sources you used were legitimate.

You seem to be skewing the word "merge," to mean, "merge and include every unreliable source Pundit used," which clearly did not have consensus.

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolate Thai (2nd nomination)...

Those who wanted to keep everything:

• You
• Blanchardb

Those who wanted to outright delete the article:

• TheBilly
• Coccyx Bloccyx
• anetode
• Guest9999
• Me (until I changed my vote)

Those who wanted a merge, but with minimal information kept: (i.e., the non-notable obscure jazz musician, your claim that it actually existed, and was popular in the 90's)

• Me
• LonelyBeacon:

From what I am seeing, there is not a lot of independent sourcework, but there may be enough to include a mention in another

Cat:

We have a list of slang article and this can be added there. Provided there are reliable sources

• Guy:

what can be surced form reliable sources (very little) and redirect

If I am wrong, I suggest you contact the folks on the last part of that list to clarify their statements. According to WP:V, the burden of proof rests on those who are including information.

To quote Jimmy Wales' from that page:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales ^[1]

Further attempts at intimidation through subtle threats will be ignored. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The RfC decided about credibility of resources, while the AfD decided about a merger. The information is already merged. To delete anything you have to start a discussion on credibility again - so far in the RfC 2 people were confirming my stance, that it is sensible to use it, while 0 supported your view. Spare me the "intimidation" and "threats" talk - I'm just unsuccessfully trying to persuade you to respect the Wiki rules. Pundit|utter 21:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I put forth the AfD because of the unreliable sources. WP:CONSENSUS is global, not localized. You can't say, "X users in Y location said Z, therefore Z is correct." In fact, consensus is temporally global as well, so you can't even say, "Most users said X at point in time Y, therefore X is correct," because consensus can change and if it's irrational, per WP:IAR, it holds no weight.

Consensus is about what everybody thinks overall, throughout all places and times on Wikipedia. Taking into account the RFC, you have two more people that agree with you. Add that to the list of people above: You still don't have a rough consensus. I posted it on the WP:RS noticeboard. Please be patient and wait a few days to see what the people there say and we can decide where to go from there. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote, you're more than welcome to start a discussion on credibility of the sources, but so far the closed RfC's result was unanimously to recognize them. Be so kind and respect this until another decision is made (don't delete information unless you build a consensus for it). Your reasons for AfD are irrelevant, especially when we discuss your current editions of editions of Cannabis. Pundit|utter 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC is not arbitration. Per the policy on preserving information, I am not removing information, persay. I am removing unencyclopedic nonsense that's poorly sourced, with no consensus for it to stay up. Please, as I said, be patient and wait for the folks at the WP:RS noticeboard to respond. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are removing referenced information 3 editors perceive as relevant. If you want to do so, ask others and build consensus. Your zeal in deleting and calling it "unencyclopedic nonsense" is amazing. Pundit|utter 22:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

3 editors != consensus. Far more than 3 editors disagree with you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sure many editors disagree with me, but so far none agreed with you. Don't you think that building consensus and being constructive could be a nice practice, for a change? Pundit|utter 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the case. Why don't you ask them? Their names are all listed above. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I've done it plenty of times before on here. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not how it works. If you want to delete some information that has been agreed upon as relevant, you should build consensus and, first of all, ask people for their opinion. Hasty actions are never good. Even when you're right, it is always better to ask for comment - it doesn't hurt, really. An experienced editor like you should know it well. Also, even when you're 100% sure you're right, you should not violate 3RR rule. Pundit|utter 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing - to ask for opinion address all editors, not only the ones who voted. After all we want a wide consensus and I am going to respect it, whatever the result is. Pundit|utter 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, neither of us are psychic, so we can only tell what people think based on what they write. Also, this is a side-issue, but you have a number of impressive credentials on your user page. Would you mind if I could verify them informally? I'm not accusing you here, because if I verified them (and I'm a user engaged in a dispute with you here), then people would be more likely to listen to your expert advice. I admit that after the Essjay controversy, I'm a tad bit paranoid about editors making contentious edits while having such substantial credentials in their user page. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you to my edit relating to the Chocolate Thai situation because it is clear you are going to care. Please fully read my double-post on Talk:Cannabis#Chocolate_Thai before considering me an "enemy". I did delete the atrociously located text on the Cannabis page, but on talk I speculate on a possible solution that might ultimately give you a better home permitting increased coverage for Chocolate Thai. Alsee (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I'm not hostile, but I didn't mean to give the impression I was your SuperHero either :) I am skeptical about the value of a dedicated Chocolate Thai page - or the dedicated pages for the other varieties either - but I wouldn't really fight either way on it. I think your magazine source is extremely borderline, but I wouldn't fight for or against it. The content you care about seems pretty insignificant to me, but wouldn't fight for or against it. My issue was that the text stuffed into the middle of the Cannabis page variety list was "damage" to the list and "damage" to the page, so I removed that damage.

In the process I noticed that my edit incidentally touched on a complex history of AFD and RFC, so I didn't want to step on that history without justifying my edit.

My only interest was a drive-by-edit to fix a damaged list on the Cannabis page. Hopefully you agree I'm right on that particular point - and hopefully don't simply revert my edit. I'm sorry if that leaves you in an awkward position, but hopefully you accept I can make that particular fix without taking up responsibility for solving your issue too. If you get some sort of consensus on the various talk pages to merge all of the variety pages, I might lend partial assistance on that project. If there's some sort of RFC for merging all those pages, leave me a message and I'd be glad to vote for it. Alsee (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A proposed merger of mine you might check out.

I admit I was probably assuming bad faith before about you and I was wrong about, as noted elsewhere. You are apparently a very good editor, since we were both able to compromise on Chocolate Thai. Well, based on our discussions involving Buddhism, I'd like your opinion on my proposal to merge Eastern philosophy with Eastern religions, and rename Indian religions to History of religion in India. For anyone with the slightest education in the matter, what needs to be done should be obvious, which is why the past consensus surprises me. It appears to have been poisoned by common western misconceptions about Eastern philosophy and Indian nationalists trying to push the POV that India deserves credit for the development of half the world's major religions.

You seemed to have some knowlege on the matter, hence the reason I'm contacting you. See the discussion here. Zenwhat (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

hi. Many thanks for your most kind words and appreciation - it is really nice to hear it after a heated debate such as ours. Unfortunately, I don't feel competent enough on the issue. I expressed my opinion in the talk page - in general the merger (or at least partial mergers here and there) some may seem like a good idea, but I think a longer debate is crucial, as otherwise a revert-war is imminent. Good luck in negotiations :) Pundit|utter 00:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we bashed heads because of our different philosophies. On Meta, see the essay M:Wikithoritarianism and M:Immediatism. Obviously, "true" Wikipedia philosophy is some combination of the two, but I lean very heavily in favor of Wikithoritarianism and Immediatism. You, seemingly like most users and admins, lean very heavily in favor of Gradualism and Wikidemocratism. I follow WP:BRD. However, if someone makes extremely silly points, I take them through every step of dispute resolution, up to and including arbitration. I got this influence from Sceptre (talk · contribs) who I butted heads with on Gamespot and, to this day, has ignored me over the matter. I've apologized to him and told him how he was right, and I was wrong, but he thinks I'm a wikistalker and a troll. And who can blame him? Zenwhat (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I need some help please

Hi. In this discussion you told me that my contribution can be easily tracked down...
It seems that my page is going to be deleted.
I want to know what the deletion means and if some archive is possible.
Can I still be recognized as the author of this idea?
Anny help will be welcomed as I am new and don't know how to use the tools in Wikipedia.
Thanks.
And where is the add new message link? Raffethefirst (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for intervention :).

If ever need something don't hesitate to contact me. Raffethefirst (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiliberalism

Wikiliberalism: It's an outline of an essay I intend to publish, eventually. Please don't edit it, but I would like your opinion and any suggests on how to improve it.

I've already sent the essay to a Libertarian, who is sure to love my ideas.

You seem to adhere to what could be "mainstream Wikipedianism," which is why I'm asking your opinion. While I'm glad we worked things out on Chocolate Thai, I think that we were very slow because of our different editing philosophies. Zenwhat (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. A nice essay. I am somewhat reluctant to focus on background work at Wiki (such as introducing new wikipolitical doctrines), but I am glad that somebody does it :) Pundit|utter 16:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Pundit, as noted in the essay every editor inherently has an overall philosophical approach to editing Wikipedia. I need constructive criticism, not just compliments and encouragement. I asked you because you seem to espouse the kind of philosophy on Wikipedia that I find troublesome (no offense intended -- I respect you and consider you a very good editor). When I release the essay publicly, I will be more persuasive among the average Wikipedian sharing your views if I have counter-rebuttals prepared.

Furthermore, I find it strange that you seem unwilling to be bold when it comes to Wikipedia philosophy or my request for your opinion on Eastern philosophy, on the grounds that "you don't know much about it," but while you had a similar depth of knowledge of Chocolate Thai, you argued extensively to protect the article from deletion. There's an inconsistency there, isn't there? Inclusionism is only semi-coherent if inclusionists are diligent when it comes to improving articles, who go beyond mere wikilawyering and scrambling to find unreliable sources to protect articles from deletion. Zenwhat (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raffe user page

My pleasure! -- Avi (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis

Hey, thanks for dropping by. Yes, I see that a lot of discussion has gone into it that I have missed. I will not revert the edit! :) Thanks for letting me know! JRDarby (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rudget!

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which I withdrew with 5 support, 14 oppose, and 9 neutral. Thank you for your comments! Whether it was a support, oppose, or neutral, I likely got some good feedback from you. I will probably do another RfA in the future, but not until I work out the issues brought up.

Soxπed Ninety Three | tcdb 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis

I thought we made it clear that source was unreliable. If not, what was the point in merging? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taekwondo Mediation

JLL has requested for mediation. You have been party to discussion in my opinion so if you would like to participate in the mediation please add yourself here and agree to the mediation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Taekwondo

Thanks.melonbarmonster (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help with TKD Article

The revert warring had stopped after the mediation request was placed. Unfortunately, JLL seems to have lost his patience and has resumed his edit warring. Could you help diffuse JLL's reverting and lend a third party voice to this dispute? I've decided not the engage in the revert war but we need third party editors to voice their comments.melonbarmonster (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Europe

You can find more interested editors at WP:PWNB and similar noticeboards.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Informal verification of your credentials

Send an email to verifyingthecredentials@mailinator.com from a university e-mail address.

And send me a link to a university website (or other credible institution) containing that same email address either here or through email.

After they're verified, I'll note it on your talkpage. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I must admit, you're using a strange address by yourself ;) Pundit|utter 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on the Cannabis article

I have closed the 3RR request with a decision that no block should be imposed this time, as the edit war seems to have ended. However if either you or the other editor continue to engage in edit warring, you will be blocked (please bear in mind that you can revert three times or less and still be blocked for edit warring). I hope that you can both reach an agreement. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

hi.. thanks for the user box!! ^.^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manduinspace (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WJKA

Apparently Twinkle messed up. I fixed this AfD for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: rollback rights request

Hi, I've been wondering if you would consider granting me the rollback rights. In my edits I do deal with rolling back vandalisms and I would find the additional tool useful. As an administrator of pl-wiki, as well as through my contributions here, I believe I have managed to prove that I can act responsibly. In any case, thanks for consideration. Pundit|utter 00:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Granted. Rudget. 12:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Out of interest, how come you asked me in particular? :) Rudget. 16:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. :) If you need any other help, just ask. Rudget. 16:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rebooting WikiProject Fictional series

Hello...WikiProject Fictional series is in the process of getting a new start by attracting task forces. I am currently getting things set up for this and other project building areas. Please stop by and take a look. Your suggestions will be appreciated. - LA @ 01:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please share with the group. I am not the only one working on this. Have a nice day! :) - LA @ 01:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] login problem

Hi I dont know where to ask this so I hope you dont mind if I ask you.

When I login I dont check the box with remember my login but it still remember me. And I dont want this to happen.

Can you tell me how to fix this or where to ask for help?

thanks Raffethefirst (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RPGs

Three articles :( It's a mess. We need help. Role-playing game (video games) is the main article and up until a few days ago it was a disambiguation page. The two articles previously listed were Computer role-playing game and Console role-playing game which had a lot of redundant information, which has since been migrated into the main Role-playing game (video games) article. I think it makes more sense to link to the main article, and once readers are there they will be able to drill down to the specific distinctions between computers and consoles. I was planning on reverting your edit for that reason. But if you disagree, feel free to let me know. I don't want to step on any toes. Randomran (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't get hung up too much on the "(video games)" part of the Role-playing game (video games) article. Right now, we have genre articles like Puzzle video game and Strategy video game which refer to both console and computer games. The article is supposed to refer to all electronic games, on consoles and computers. If you have advice for a rename, I'd gladly take it. But right now, the WP:video games wikiproject uses "video games" as a convenient short hand for computer and console games. Really, the "(video games)" thing isn't there to say that it's on consoles, but to distinguish it from the tabletop RPG article. In spite of the name, this IS the main article now, and the computer games article is a sub-class of this main article. Hence why I'd just like to link to the main article. Please let me know what you think a reasonable solution would be. Randomran (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, the "video" thing is a standard term as part of the WP:video games project. It's a project that includes text-based and graphics based games, computer and console games. Video is just convenient shorthand, and is not meant to exclude text-based games or roguelikes. Even the video game RPG template is called Template:Video_RPG. That said, I've edited the name of the link to be more clear. If you would also like to rename the main article for RPG computer and video games, I would encourage you to do so and support such a move. Randomran (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely a deep issue that's beyond my control as a single editor. But it's something I'll raise at the WP:video games discussion page. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Is_.22video_games.22_misleading.3F Randomran (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for being so cooperative and understanding. I'm coming back to wikipedia in the past few weeks after a long hyatus, because of some frustrating personalities. It's nice to see that there's still people appreciate the spirit of collaboration here. Good luck with the RPG articles... Randomran (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pundit, are you Montesquio?Marc KJH (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Median Europe

It's a good idea. Montessquieu (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Central Europe

http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780195148251 Opinion please? Ive been involved in enough disputes on the Central Europe article so will not add/delete any countries myself without getting some feedback. That's just one source that I ran into while looking for the encyclopedic links for the article, don't have time to do more digging at the moment though. --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:falsified map

How did you come to the conclusion that the map was falsified? The map was taken from here and as you can see, they are 2 maps of Central Europe from CIA factbook : one map from 1996 and one map from 2001. So, where do you see the falsification? And why shold be those maps be falsified? --Olahus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

[edit] Question Answered

I've answered your question in my RfA. Hope you vote and hope this helps. SimpsonsFan08 ^talk 21:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concensus

Hi, regarding my proposal in the Central Europe article: what exactly is considered consensus on Wikipedia? 10-5 is the standing right now...--Buffer v2 (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

[edit] Metiation cabal

There's a case at the Mediation Cabal where you have been named as an involved party: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 Central Europe. Your input would be appreciated. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Takayuki Kubota on magazine covers.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Takayuki Kubota on magazine covers.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: map in Eastern Europe

The green areas, as well as the grey areas are absolutely not relevant for the article. This is the reason why I described only the red area. But those users who want to see the meaning of the green area can take a look at the description of the picture. This is the meaning of the section "Description".--Olahus (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi Pundit; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 22:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pondering

Hi Pundit. Panel_2008 is back again - filed a 3RR report... I have been involved on the Central Europe page since mid-March I believe, at the moment Panel_2008, and his side-kick User:Marc KJH arrived and continued the edit warring. I'm confident that they are sock puppets of one user - and I think it's about time to take some action here. However, I have no proof whatsoever. I've tried a checkuser on the user before... but it failed... We can see that he is good at playing around with IPs. Looking at the 3 account contrib histories - it's obvious that they are connected, and looking at the Central Europe page, it's even more obvious that these two are sock puppets of one user - they are the scapegoats who are there to shield his main account. I've been sure about this for months, but just don't know how to go about finally stopping him. Since you have more experience with Wikipedia than me, thought I'd ask you. Any ideas?--Buffer v2 (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)