Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RJII

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Original pleadings and comments from the request for arbitration

As they are poorly organized and consist of statements and counterstatements they are difficult to use on the project page itself. I leave it to the parties to prepare coherant statements for the project page. Please use the space reserved for your statement and do not respond within another party's space. Fred Bauder 23:02, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:RJII

I am requesting enforcement of our Wikipedia: No original research, Wikipedia: Cite sources, and Wikipedia: Verifiability policies. I have already made a "request for comment." I have not asked for mediation because my primary concern is not RJII's abusive behavior towards me.

This concerns the Capitalism article, and discussions on the Talk: Capitalism page. First, RJII has proposed what he calls a “Marxist definition of capitalism”

Still it would not be consistent with the basic Marxist definition of capitalism --the private ownership of the means of production. Why not just add that definition in there? If you have one then you need to put this one in also or you disenfranchise a significant segment of people who have a different conception of definition/description/conception of capitalism. What are you afraid of? People are going to see the truth about the exploitative nature of capitalism? RJII 03:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually just one of those characteristics can make an economy capitalist. That condition is the private ownership of capital. I've tried to make the point here before. There is a common definition of capitalism that only denotes the private ownership of capital ..it's sometimes called the Marxist definition. In Marxism a capitalist is someone who owns capital, and capitalism is that state of affairs --free market, etc. doesn't even enter the picture. A few people here can't seem to get it that through their heads and insist on this horrible introduction. RJII 15:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Second, Ultramarine and I have challenged his definition and have asked for a source from Marx

RJII continues to be a POV warrior thinking that his view is the only view (he says it is "sometimes called the marxist definition" but this is just clear evidence that he doesn't know what he is talking about. It is not the Marxist definitions, and RJII refuses to Wikipedia: Cite sources — who calls this the marxist definition?).... Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Again, please give an reference for this Marxist definition. Please note that the OED defintion do not refer to an economic system. Ultramarine 19:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only source RJII has ever given is from the OED, which is not a source for a "marxist" definition.

It's not an economic system. It's just the private ownership of capital. When Marx talks about "capitalists" he's not talking about people that favor capitalism ( the economic system), but simply, to individuals who own capital. Likewise, "capitalism" in this sense is an extension of that, and is often used in that sense. It is the private ownership of capital (not an economic system). As far as a source that actually explicity defines it, I gave you one ..the well-respected Oxford English Dictionary. RJII 19:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The following lengthy exchange is evidence of RJII’s contempt for any constructive discussion. In it, he denies having ever proposed a “Marxist definition of capitalism,” calls me a liar for having suggested that he has, and, in the end, continues to evade any request for a source.

The Oxford English Dictionary is good enough. It's a well-respected NPOV source. You'll find that with dictionaries, that they all don't list all the alternative meanings. That doesn't mean that the alternative meanings aren't real or they're wrong. M-W doens't give the meaning that the OED gives, and the OED doesn't supply the meaning that the M-W supplies. That doesn't mean they are conflicting, but that they're two different uses of the word. They're both right. One describes a system, and the other just describes the condition of owning capital. RJII 20:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Can you find some other dictionaries than OED that have this not economic system definition? To show that this usage is not obsolete. Ultramarine 20:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What other major dictionaries are out there? There are only a few major ones and the OED is one of them. I'm not going to go looking in inconsequential dictionaries. RJII 20:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
RJII continues to misrepresent the Marxist view. As I have explained countless times, Marx did not define capitalism in terms of the private ownership oif capital. RJII is simply making this up. He has shown no evidence of real research (where exactly does Marx define capitalism this way?) Far more important to Marx and marxists than "private ownership of capital" is their claim that capitalism is historically specific. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What have I been telling you all along? Apparently you can't read. Marx never uses the word "capitalism." He never defines "capitalism." He uses the word "capitalist." And by capitalist he means someone who owns capital. "Capitalism" is an extension of this usage --the private ownership of capital. This usage is of the term is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary --the most respected dictionary in the world. How many times does such a simple thing have to be explained to you? Jesus Christ. RJII 17:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Marx did use the word "capitalism," for ex., in Capital, Vol.I, Part VII, Ch.24 [1]. El_C 12:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What you write here is disingenuous. Marx may not have used the word "capitalism" but he does refer to "the bourgeois economic system," "the bourgeois relations of production," and "the capitalist mode of production," phrases that are synonymous with "capitalism." And he does define these terms. And when he does define the capitalist mode of production, he does not define it as "the private ownership of capital." How many times does such a simple thing have to be explained to you? If you want to provide the OED definition, fine, call it the OED definition. But if you want Marx's definition of "capitalism" (capitalist mode of production" read Marx, not the OED. How many times do I have to repeat this? You must do real research. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Marx does not define the word "capitalism" --just as Adam Smith doesn't. I don't have to do research for a damned thing that I haven't posted in the article. I never posted anything in the article that was labeled as a Marxist definition. You're out of line. RJII 19:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am quoting you right here: "...the basic Marxist definition of capitalism --the private ownership of the means of production." So yes, you obviously have posted something that you yourself labeled a "Marxist definition." The problem is, your Marxist definition is wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm#capitalism El_C 12:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're a liar. That was taken from the Talk page. That was never posted to the article. Again, I find over and over you to be a reprehensible disingenuous individual who is a complete waste of time to have a discussion with. So, this concludes my wasting my time talking to you. I forget that I had come to that conclusion before. RJII 19:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am not a liar -- it is telling that when confronted with facts you retreat into personal insults. You have posted this definition in the article, and here on the talk pages -- and talk pages are for discussions about how to improve the article, and explanations for chantes to the article -- you have claimed that this is a marxist definition. Yes, the quote was taken from the talk page -- but so what? It is the "talk page" of the "Capitalism" article!!. Slrubenstein | Talk
Moreover, in this edit summary [2] you explicitly provided "Marx" as a source for your definition, "private ownership of capital." Slrubenstein | Talk 19:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The edit history of the Capitalism page is replete with RJII's persistent attempts to inject his own POV into the article, and to delete work by others -- I am talking about hundreds and hundreds of edits. These are not easy to identify as violations of 3RR because he alternates deleting different things. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I did inform RJII, but he deleted my notice that I have made a complaint [3] Slrubenstein | Talk 21:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not only are you intent on wasting my time Slrubenstein, you're intent on trying to waste the time of these fine people. RJII 02:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question to Fred: Not to nitpick, but if you've previously involved yourself in this dispute on the mailing list, wouldn't that be cause to recuse? (I didn't follow the thread, so I could be wrong - just struck me reading the comments) Snowspinner 17:05, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

My involvement was limited to encouraging use of the dispute resolution procedure. That cannot be grounds for recusal. Fred Bauder 00:51, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Good enough for me. Just wanted to make sure. Snowspinner 01:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and Votes by Arbitrators (6/2/0/0)

  • Reject. We don't deal with content disputes. Ambi 23:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject; content dispute. -- Grunt   ҈  23:53, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  • Accept - We would not be ruling on content itself per se but instead enforcing our content policies. If we refuse to to enforce those policies then they are meaningless and we have given up on our primary mission ; to create an encyclopedia. --mav 01:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept to consider whether the policy cite sources has been followed. There has been a long discussion on mailing list regarding this matter and I encouraged slrubenstein to use the dispute resolution process rather than reverting. Fred Bauder 17:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept ➥the Epopt 21:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept as per Fred - David Gerard 21:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept. Neutralitytalk 02:20, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept. Nohat 03:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Others

  • I am not commenting on the merits of the complaint. But I believe it is important that the ArbComm not simply dismiss this as a "content dispute". While the Arb Comm does not decide the merits of arguments about content, it does enforce Wikipedia policies concerning the behaviour of editors. We do not have policies about what content should be in the Wikipedia, but we do have policies concerning the process which editors must follow in creating that content. The petitioner has stated clearly on which behavioural policies his complaint is based: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite your sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability. The petitioner does not specifically mention the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy in his first sentence, but some of his subsequent comments about "POV-pushing" suggest that this policy is also involved in this dispute. If the Arb Comm rejects this case as a "content dispute", it will be a clear statement that the Arb Comm does not intend to enforce these policies. --BM 12:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have monitored the page since I know something about the subject (economics was one of my three majors), saw the revert warring and wanted to make sure true NPOV is achieved, and was concerned about it because I knew srubinstein's POV. However, when I saw what they were fighting over, I thought both versions were quite good and equally acceptable, and couldn't decide between them except when occasional minor points intruded. I frankly haven't been able to figure out what RJIII's POV was, so I am surprised he is being accused of that rather than mere persistance, because usually persistence is idealogically motivated and I haven't been able to discern his. HOWEVER, as they have continued to revert and COMPROMISED, I think the introduction especially has gotten worse than either's party's original text. I think both sides have edited in good faith. The talk page has been difficult to follow, so I am not sure if there is a basis for the accusations of lying. --Silverback 13:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Arbs should bear in mind that Wikipedia:Cite sources is not policy, and nor is it a requirement to cite sources. It merely suggests how sources should be cited - rather than requires them to be cited, jguk 21:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • What is policy and what isn't is rather vague on Wikipedia, I find. It is true that Wikipedia:Cite sources is not in Category:Wikipedia official policy or even in Category:Wikipedia semi-policy (whatever a "semi-policy" is supposed to be). However Wikipedia:No original research, which is a fundamental policy, calls upon editors to cite their sources, and links to Wikipedia:Cite sources for further discussion and directions on the preferred style for citations. What is the policy status of that link? I suppose if you cited sources, but used a different approach than called for by Wikipedia:Cite sources, you would be within "policy", since "Cite sources" is only a style guideline. But you can't argue that there is no policy requiring the citation of sources, since that is clearly spelled out in WP:NOR. --BM 12:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • But Wikipedia:No original research is policy, and the only way to show you're not doing original research is to cite your source, so citing sources if challenged is indeed a policy requirement. SlimVirgin 22:55, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are cases where an edit isn't original research but a citation, while helpful, isn't considered necessary. I could write, for instance, that London taxi cabs are usually black and London buses are usually red, and while it would be possible to cite a source for this (a picture of Piccadilly Circus or Oxford Street would do, I should expect) it wouldn't necessarily be appropriate. If someone challenged me on it I might simply ask him if he'd ever actually stood on a Central London street, although obviously it would be much more helpful to upload an appropriate picture. Requiring Cite Sources to be policy might well result in a lot of unnecessarily reference-dense articles, where some commonplace facts were omitted because the editor was challenged and couldn't be bothered to support a commonplace statement for the sake of a pernickerty challenge. Were this to happen, Wikipedia would be a poorer encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, after consideration, I'd like this to be brought to arbitration if it's not too much trouble. Anything to get that guy off my back with his ridiculous accusations. RJII 03:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to point a few things out:
  1. Slrubenstein has conceded that the definition was only labeled "Marxist" in the talk page: Search this page for "Yes, the quote was taken from the talk page" and you'll see the context. If he never called it a "Marxist definition" anywhere but talk pages, I don't see what the issue is about.
  2. I have found the majority of RJII's edits to be very substantive on pages like libertarianism, and have said so previously.
  3. User:Che y Marijuana, who says of himself that "I consider myself an Anarcho-Marxist," has also been impressed with RJII's work: On RJII's talk page, Che says "wow... I gotta thank you for your edits to the socialism articles, good stuff :)" This means that RJII has not allowed a pro-capitalist or objectivist POV to interfere with his writing (assuming he has one in the first place)---a self-described Marxist appreciated his work on socialism.
Dave 06:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
The issue is not only if RJII has labeled a particular definition Marxist without sources (although he has, also in the article, see edit summaries here, [4] [5].). Read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII. Regarding Che y Marijuana, here is a comment and reply by RJII on talk page of the Capitalism article [6] [7]Ultramarine 15:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"See Marxism" asserts nothing about the definition. Don't insult our intelligence. RJII 15:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dave, above, is wrong to say "Slrubenstein has conceded that the definition was only labeled "Marxist" in the talk page." I have never conceded this. In fact, I provide evidence that when RJII added the definition to the article, he wrote in the edit summary that Marx was his source. This is clearly beyond a talk-page discussion. David's claim is groundless. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"He wrote in the edit summary that Marx was his source." Ok, then what's the problem? I cited a source. I also cited Thackaray. And here I put in the definition again and cited the OED: [8] If you don't like the sources, too bad. Three sources were cited. Youre case is discombobulated. First you say I don't cite a source, then you say I do. One of those sources, explicitly defines capitalism ..the OED. If you have nothing better to do then file a bogus arbitration over something so frivolous to harass a felow editor, I feel sorry for you. It's really pathetic. RJII 16:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not stoop to personal insults. What is the problem? The problem is that you are not providing a source. You are claiming to provide a source but your claim is hollow for two reasons. First, you have never provided the book title and page number from which you are getting this definition. If you claim your source is Marx, tell us exactly where Marx said this -- give us the book title and page number. Second, you can't, because this isn't Marx's definition of capitalism. You simply made it up. This is really not the way to write an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've gone over the edge. Case closed. RJII 20:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A solution

A while back, EL C provided a definition of Capitalism from the Encyclopedia of Marxism, which is, as far as I can tell, a Marxist publication.[[9]] It defines capitalism as "The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour." Now there's a source. Can we all move on with our lives, now? Dave 06:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Here's information from the Marxist Internet Archive (which runs the encyclopedia I quoted above) that supports my above claim that it is a Marxist publication: "We are a volunteer based non-profit organisation, with the purpose of educating people around the world about Marxism"[10], and that their goal is to provide a "rebirth" for their version of non-authoritarian marxism[11] Dave 07:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Dave, how is this a solution to the arbitration? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A big chunk of the debate was over whether there was a Marxist definition that supports his. Now there is. We can all go home now. Dave 20:53, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. The discussion is over RJII's violation of various Wikipedia policies: NPOV, NOR, Cite Sources, Verifiability, and No personal attacks. Now, if you want to "go home" you can "go home" any time you want to. But the ArbCom has accepted this matter and I do not understand why you are suggesting that they now reject it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All right. I tried. Dave (talk) 16:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am sure your intentions were good -- I just think you were missing the point. Also, I think the definition you provide over-simplifies Marx's view (which is why, when researching an encyclopedia article, we need to be very careful to try to understand a topic rather than hunt for lines we can quote out of context). Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's over, dude. Go home. (And feel free to quote this to arbitrators an another alleged personal attack as a testament to your sensitivity. I'm sure they'll shed a tear for you. They may even make me sit in the penalty box. If they do, it's worth it to expose a fraud.) RJII

[edit] Slrubenstein responds to previous comments

Jguk states that "cite sources" is not a policy. Well, you can reach it through the community portal, to policies and conventions, to overview of policies, to content guidelines. So is "cite sources" a "policy" or a "guideline?" As far as my complaint is concerned, I do not think it matters. The policy -- and we can all agree that this is a central policy -- with which I am concerned is, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. This means it must provide at the very least accurate information. And to provide accurate information, we must do research. My complaint against RJII is that he insists on including an inacurate statement -- this is a factual claim, because there is an objective record of his having added "private ownership of capital" as "the marxist definition," and it is wrong (or at best, an incomplete distortion of the marxist definition). I further believe he has done no research, and I consider that an insult to the project. (I understand that there are many articles where an informed editor does not have to do research, and that what counts as apporpriate research varies from topic to topic. In this case thought I think it is obvious: if you want to add to an article the "marxist definition of capital" you need to read books by and about marxists) I admit I cannot marshal objective evidence as to whether he has or has not done research. But this is where I see the "cite sources" policy (or guideline, or whatever you want to call it) as useful. I have asked him to provide a source. Now, if he has done research, he should easily be able to provide a source. But he has not only refused to provide a source, he has done it through torturous rhetoric (I did provide a source/I don't have to provide a source because I never said this/there is no marxist definition of capitalism) that only wastes time. In other words, asking for the source is just a means to an end -- it is a means to my finding out what kind of research supports the claim, and it is a means for any editor to ensure that what they add is verifiable. I do not see how anyone can argue with the importance of these principles to an encyclopedia.

I am not fetishizing "cite sources," it is only a means to an end. For Tony Sideaway to bring up London taxicabs suggests contempt for this process. Rambling on about cases where sources may be unnecessary or even distracting, rather than confronting the specifics of this case, serves no purpose. The purpose of this complaint is not to establish a precedent that every sentence in Wikiedia must be a quote or have a source, and to construe my complaint this way is only to divert attention from what is really at stake: the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and in this case, the quality of the Capitalism article.

How anyone can dispute the fact that editors who refuse to do research while insisting on adding inaccurate content are doing something destructive to our project is beyond me. And I am not asking the ArbCom to sanction any particular definition of capitalism either. You do not need to know anything about capitalism or economics or even Marx to rule on this case. All you need to do is be able to distinguish between assertions made with evidence or support (i.e., verifiable), versus assertions made with no evidence or support. Surely, if an editor backs up a "Marxist" definition with a quote from Marx, or if an editor refuses to provide any support for their claim, you can make a decision. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: above, RJII wrote,

Actually, after consideration, I'd like this to be brought to arbitration if it's not too much trouble. Anything to get that guy off my back with his ridiculous accusations. RJII 03:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is RJII filing a complaint against me, now? If so, I ask that he specify his complaint (in making "ridiculous accusations," what policies have I violated?) and provide evidence.

[edit] Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources

There is currently a proposal on Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources to write down the requirement that unsourced information, when queried, should be backed up by a source. At present - whilst there is a kind of unwritten policy in this direction, there is nothing written down.

Rather than the Arbs making up a new written policy by themselves, I'd encourage WPians who care about this point to contribute to the page so that it can become official policy as soon as possible, jguk 19:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The requirement to cite sources is and has been essential to the policy of No original research. Otherwise anyone can write anything and claim that there are sources but refuse give them. It is good if this will be this stated more clearly but the already existing policy, written or not, is applicable in this arbitration case as it has been in prior cases. See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents section on "Source citations":
  • Cite sources.
  • It is highly desirable that editors cite the sources of the information in their edits, especially on controversial articles.
From Wikipedia:No original research:
"In most cases, however, Wikipedia articles are based on both primary and secondary sources. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material used in an article has been published or otherwise made available to people who do not rely on Wikipedia. Moreover, it is essential that any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data come from a secondary source that is available to readers (e.g. in a library or non-Wikipedia web-page). It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can verify any claims made in the article."
""No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. They should refer to themselves and their publications in the third person and write from a neutral point of view (NPOV). They must also cite publications, and may not use their unpublished knowledge as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify)." Ultramarine 21:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
However, if you read those pages, nowhere is there an absolute requirement to provide sources for queried information. Which is quite an omission, jguk 21:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not all policies are explicit and written down, even if this is preferable. There is not a list of every possible statement that is an personal attack. Judgement by the arbitrators are required. Similarly, deciding what is original research requires some judgement. Having no sources in controversial areas is original research according to already established policy. Making this more explicit may be preferable but has no bearing on this particular case. Ultramarine 21:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, the point is not that an editor "must" put citations in the article. The point is that an article must be accurate and verifiable. That RJII cannot provide a source for his claims means that they are unverifiable, and in this case, where several editors have objected to his assertions, suggests that he is wrong. Asking for a source is not some legalistic insistance on following rules, it is an attempt to make sure that added content is true. Do you seriously think anyone should be able to add anything to an article? How can we maintain any standards, if we do not stick to our verifiability policy? This is the issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I'm not sure whether you've read Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources. If so, I think you must have misread it. The page is entirely consistent with what you are suggesting. I think it is important that these principles are written down - and that is why I support that proposal. Once you've read the proposal, I'd be interested to know if you support it, jguk 20:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"in this case, where several editors have objected to his assertions, suggests that he is wrong. First of all, there are only two editors making this false claim --you and your edit-war partner-in-crime Ultramarine. Secondly, the fact that two, rather than one, are making such a claim may just as well indicate that both of you are in collusion to dishonestly harm RJII, and that is indeed to case. I reiterate that I indeed cited a source for what I posted in the article. If Jguk is correct, then I might not have had to anyway. Your obsessive intent to harass me through an arbitration case with such a disingenous claim reflects horribly on your character ..or what you have left of it. RJII 20:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, you are right -- I did not look at the proposed policy carefully, and am sorry I misunderstood your take on things. You are correct that I am in agreement with your basic point. RJII, I am getting tired of your ad hominem attacks on my character. My problem with your edits is not that I think you are a liar or have a horrible character, my objection is that encyclopedia articles should, when appropriate (e.g. in this case) be based on serious research of important sources, and account for multiple points of view. I do not think a single definition that either comes from a dictionary, or which is your own invention, is at all appropriate for a high-quality NPOV encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, just between you and me, it's hard for me to take you seriously. You lost credibility in my eyes very early on, and that lack of credibility to me is only confirmed every time you say something. And, I'm sure others feel the same way. I say this out of genuine concern for you: don't make a further spectacle of yourself. RJII 18:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your only response is just another ad hominem remark? So be it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)