Talk:Polygamy
|
|
Archive
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3
3rd Opinion
Okay, first thing I want to say is that this Talk page as I found it frightened me. It was very, very, long! I've archived most of it as it was a mangled mess and took forever to load. So from now on I beg for brevity!
I'd really like to hear from Researcher what it is he wants to change, and then from other folk why they resist these changes. Please, stay cool, don't start replying to each other, just make your cases and let them speak for themselves! Dan100 22:30, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dan. I, too, will love to see that. Tom Haws 23:07, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dan. It does seem to have calmed down for a while. I hope that the calm remains. I put the disputed tag back into the main article, because the text of the article is still disputed, even if the disputes have been resolved. I'll start making the changes to the main article soon. It may take me a few days to a week to make all of the necessary changes, then remove the disputed sectionl. After that, I will try editing for style. Thanks, Dan. Nereocystis 17:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By moving the important warnings and proofs of the numerous sneaky vandalisms done to this wiki by Ghostinthshell and Nereocystis over to the Archive 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2), everyone is now less informed of seeing the real problem and the numerous itemized destructions they have caused. As this keeps going without correction back to STATUS QUO, Nereocystis has continued to make even more and more destructions. How many times do I have to list out the numerous destructions and wait in what seems to vain for someone to stop their vandalism, only to hear someone to ask me agin to list out all the numerous problems again? And even when I do, we hear that reading all the problems is too much to read and it is removed from public reading? Truthfully, there is no real or legitimate dispute here. Nereocystis is an anti-polygamist sneaky vandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) who does not follow the Wiki Guideines, who has manufactured the supposed "Dispute" by creating all their sneaky vandalisms. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) I have also repeatedly pointed out the WIKI GUIDELINES REQUIRE STATUS QUO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Throughout.2C_I_sought_Wiki_Guidelines:__STATUS_QUO_until_TALKed.)], but instead Nereocystis keeps being allowed devastate the wiki with their numerous sneaky vandalisms. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) Those big sections I posted really need to come back here to TALK, otherwise it is proverbially like giving credibility to the terrorist, while the honest citizen has to waste time over and over repeating the proven crimes the terrorist committed. What do I want? 1.) The critically important wanrings moved back to the top of this TALK page. 2.) The article back to STATUS QUO as according to the Guidelines. THEN and only then can a real and factual discussion about the sneaky vandal's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) supposed "disputes" can be made. Please help. Thank you. Researcher 11:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I sincerly regret it, but after lurking for a few weeks, I am still clueless about this big conflict you are taking about. I am going to have to carefully read the essentials, I guess. Please tell me if I am correct that the Sneaky Vandalism section is what I need to read. Tom Haws 16:35, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I have been participating, and I don't understand the conflict. I have asked for another Third Opinion. Researcher99's editing frequency is low enough that some people thought that the conflict was resolved. It isn't, obviously. I would like to discuss the disputes, topic by topic, under Talk:Polygamy#Disputed. So far, there has been little discussion there. Please. I'm willing to back my most recent edits out and discuss the changes, but they have to be discussed. I made the latest round of changes after Dan100 encouraged me to make the changes after a lengthy quiet period. Like Dan100, I would like to see a list of proposed changes, and a reason for each of these changes. Nereocystis 18:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Short analysis. Researcher99 and I disagree on the text of Polygamy. Furthermore, we disagree on how to resolve this dispute. This is where outside help is needed. How should we resolve our disagreement? Nereocystis 19:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Proposal for moving forward and roll call of present and alert editors
OK. I have now read much of the history. Here are my recommendations:
- Forget all personal issues and allegations of past misconduct so we can focus anew on content.
- Do a roll call to be sure there are seven or more editors present and alert, including Researcher, Ghostintheshell, and Nereocystis.
- After roll call, start again to Be Bold within the 3RR rule and Discussion context. All seven editors agree to pay attention and evaluate each edit carefully.
- If editing gets hot, all seven editors agree to give weigh in on their preferred content.
- As always, seek to build and defer to consensus.
- Tom Haws 17:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Roll call and poll (7 supporters needed).
- Support Even if I do say so myself. Tom Haws 17:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Please. GhostintheShell hasn't been around since early May, It is worth trying to get him/her involved again, but it may not happen. Researcher is sometimes quiet for a few days. I suggest allowing at least a week for him to respond. Nereocystis 18:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Seven editors? Where'd that come from? You won't find seven editors active on one page anywhere on WP.
Nereocystis is free to edit the article as he sees fit within WP policies and guidelines. Researcher is free to object if he feels Nerec is breaking those rules - that's what I've invited him to do below. Dan100 (Talk) 21:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
7 editors is a bit optimistic, but we'll take what we can get. Wikipedia:Lds/polls, which has some relationship to polygamy, sometimes gets 7 votes. 3 votes would be good, including Researcher99. Without Researcher99's support, we will end in big edit wars, constant reversions, and calls for blocking editors. With Researcher99's support, polygamy may look better. I'll try to avoid major edits for a while, while waiting for Researcher99's support. I may continue to make less controversial changes, if I can figure out what those are. However, it has been nearly 2 weeks since Dan100 requested a description of the changes which Researcher99 wants to make. I still haven't seen the description. Nereocystis 09:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There does come a point when you have to start regarding an editor as a troll. If all an editor wants to do is kick up a fuss on the Talk page without putting forward suggestions or attempting to compromise with others, there's no point in feeding him. Serious editors must continue edit the article as they see fit and revert the troll. Dan100 (Talk) 10:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Help was requested here, and it's hard to understand exactly what the problem is without seeing it in action. 7 is optimistic, but I want to get all the key players plus two or three outside observers watching before we start this up again. There is no use in trying to resolve this with only three unless two adversaries agree that the third is impartial. I agree, we'll take what we can get, and there is no hurry at all. I have a page dispute (Human) that has been going on for 8 months and I haven't even viewed the page for over a month. Patience and faith. Tom Haws 15:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Researcher99 isn't a short-lived troll, it if is a troll at all. S/he has been active on polygamy since November 2004, a few days after my first edit, though s/he probably started anonymously a few days earlier. If s/he is willing to talk, life will be easier. Without agreement, there will be edit wars, people giving up in frustration, or banning. Sooner or later, I will start editing again. Nereocystis 19:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've just checked Researcher's contributions - he seems to edit at roughly ten day intervals. I don't think that should stop the progress of an article. So I urge Nere to continue his work, and if Researcher objects, he'll have to present a more coherent argument (as I have invited him to below) and also stick around for more than just one day! Other than that, what is there to say? Dan100 (Talk) 20:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Sneaky Vandals Have Destroyed This Wiki
By Researcher 16:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I had written previously (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Solution_Needed_for_Gangs_of_Sneaky_Vandals), my fears and concerns about sneaky vandals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) futher destroying the polygamy wiki has only continued to come to pass and even worsen. After one sneaky vandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) named, Ghostintheshell, committed sneaky vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism), they were soon followed, like a tag team, by another and more destructive sneaky vandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism), named, Nereocystis, committing numerous destructions to the polygamy wiki. (On a side note, that tag team might very well be the same person, but that's not the point of this post here.)
Through the process of this situation, I have presented extensive evidence, here in TALK, demonstrating their sneaky vandalisms. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) Without seeing all that evidence first, one cannot possibly understand what has really happened here in this wiki. Unfortunately, though, all of that crucial evidence was re-located to Archive2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=14846034&oldid=14845957) by Dan100, who thought the entire TALK page was getting too lengthy. What Dan100 may not have realized was that, by doing so, the most important proofs and warnings about the sneaky vandals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) was thereby inadvertently hidden, while keeping a manufactured and false set of supposed "Disputes" by the sneaky vandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) named Nereocystis.
The so-called "Dispute" was manufactured after Sneaky Vandalism
When reading the crucially important evidence, it becomes clear that the supposed "Disputes" manufactured by Nereocystis came after Nereocystis had sabotaged the wiki with an editing rampage. As the crucial evidence shows, Throughout, I sought Wiki Guidelines: STATUS QUO until TALKed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Throughout.2C_I_sought_Wiki_Guidelines:__STATUS_QUO_until_TALKed.) (I have said it numerously, frequently re-iterating this point that All the Sneaky Vandalism should be Rv'd back to STATUS QUO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#All_the_Sneaky_Vandalism_should_be_Rv.27d_back_to_STATUS_QUO) so that it can be TALKED first.) But instead, Nereocystis came in with an editing rampage, destroying the wiki further with exhaustingly numerous sneaky vandalisms. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) After causing so much destruction, that was when Nereocystis manufactured the idea of there being supposed "Disputes" here and so concocted the subsequent false notion that they supposedly want to follow the Wiki Guideines to TALK about the "Disputes." Rather than follow the actual Wiki Guidelines of getting back to STATUS QUO before TALKing, as I had long been calling for, Nereocystis was "suddenly" willing to TALK only after they had committed all their destruction and sneaky vandalisms. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism)
To understand this situation, the Evidence MUST be Read First
So, the sneaky vandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) has created a false premise, in order to justify preventing corrections to their sneaky vandalism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) My fears about that were proven yet again after I had sought to even make a few more corrective edits, knowing that there were numerous more edits to eventually make. All of my edits made from 19:09, 6 Jun 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=14805942&oldid=14805562) through 20:20, 6 Jun 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=14814713&oldid=14809334) were once again attacked by the sneaky vandal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) Less than 2 hours later, Nereocystis proved my point and utterly wiped out all of the work I had just done (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=next&oldid=14814713) at that time. Nereocystis then used that false premise they concocted of suggesting the need to "TALK" first, even though it was Nereocystis who had been the one to ignore that very call from me in the first place!
So, to really understand the situation here fully, the evidence which has previously been posted here in TALK really MUST be read first.
For simplicity, I will simply provide the outline and applicable links to each of three archived postings of all of that crucially important evidence.
1. The Ghostintheshell Situation (outlined)
This first section of evidence was posted 00:57, 7 May 2005. It provides the full story and timeline of the first of the sneaky vandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) tag team, Ghostintheshell (who most likely is the same person or group as Nereocystis.) To understand Nereocystis's recent actions, it is crucial to understand how Nereocystis "returned" to the wiki at the end of the situation with Ghostintheshell.
Here is the outline of that first section of evidence.
- The Ghostintheshell Situation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#The_Ghostintheshell_Situation)
- Why this timeline
- Throughout, I sought Wiki Guidelines: STATUS QUO until TALKed.
- Ghostintheshell breached MANY Wiki guidelines
- Unknowledgable & Short-Term vs. Knowledgable & Long-Term
- --> Ghostintheshell
- --> Researcher99
- Begins with Subsection, "How Polygamists Find More Spouses"
- Ghostintheshell Arrives & Declares Intent for Edit War
- Trödel Arrives, Rv's to STATUS QUO, says NPOV
- Trödel Returns, Again Rv's to STATUS QUO
- Trödel Returns, Makes Rv's but with duplicative content
- Ghostintheshell AGAIN Declares Intent for Edit War
- Trödel Rv's to duplicative version and 3RR-block occurs
- Final Posts
- Evading the "Block," Ghostintheshell Becomes "TheRedandtheBlack"
- 2 days later, I ask for patience to prepare this outline
- Admin Visorstuff affirms Muslim polygamous families in West exist ("Issue#2")
- All 3 of Ghostintheshell's "Issues" Already Resolved
- Ghostintheshell was a "Ghost - in - the - shell" -- NOT REAL
Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#The_Ghostintheshell_Situation) to read that entire section in Archive2.
2. Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals (outlined)
This second section of evidence was posted 14:42, 16 May 2005. It points out Nereocystis's "return" to the wiki, as a tag team sneaky vandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) to follow Ghostintheshell (who most likely is the same person or group as Nereocystis.) It shows the editing rampage that Nereocystis had begun. It points out the real problem and need for a solution that sneaky vandals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) will now prevent any intellectual researcher such as myself from making edits, as they will simply destroy any legitimate work people like myself would do for the polygamy wiki.
Here is the link and outline of that second section of evidence.
- Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Solution_Needed_for_Gangs_of_Sneaky_Vandals)
- (We should not reward bad behavior or allow misinformation)
3. Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki (outlined)
This third section of evidence was posted 23:54, 27 May 2005. This comprehensive section provides a crucially important warning for all wiki contributors to understand the tactics of anti-polygamists. It provides the detailed evidence completely "outing" Nereocystis as an actual hostile POV anti-polygamist, pretending to be for polygamy only as a disguise so as to fully destroy the wiki with erroneous information, i.e., sneaky vandalism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) (Hostile anti-polygamists and Nereocystis obviously do not want this crucially important warning and "outing" to be readily visible to polygamy wiki contributors. Yet it is imperative that it be visible and understood.)
Here is the link and outline of that third section of evidence.
- Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Sneaky_Vandals.27_Anti-Polygamy_Destruction_of_Polygamy_Wiki)
- Setting this Warning to Help this Controversial Wiki
- "Polygamy Imposters" - Anti-Polygamists Often Pretend to be "Pro-Polygamy"
- Forcing "Underage" issue "Outs" the "Polygamy Imposters" as Anti-Polygamists
- Normal Polygamists oppose "underage" issue
- Normal Polygamists try to be heard by media
- Media Bias denies Normal Polygamists from being heard
- "Underage" issue is only Anti-Polygamy Propaganda
- Unqualified "Anti-Polygamy" Sites Sneaked in to the Polygamy Wiki
- "Anti-polygamy" links first appeared
- Sneaky Vandals Sneaked the removed "anti-polygamy" links back in
- Ghostintheshell
- Nereocystis
- Anti-polygamy "tag team" successfully destroyed polygamy wiki
- Why those "Anti-polygamy" sites are not qualified
- Tapestry Against Polygamy
- Scope
- Scale
- Hope for the Child Brides
- Inflammatory generalization
- Self-admitted Irrelevance
- Tapestry Against Polygamy
- Pushing these "Anti-polygamy" Sites promotes "Underage" Propaganda
- All the Sneaky Vandalism should be Rv'd back to STATUS QUO
- Ghostintheshell's supposed "issues" were Resolved anyway
- Nereocystis's Edit-Rampage Manufactured "Disputes" to Falsely Justify STOPPING the Wiki
- Wiki Guidelines call for STATUS QUO anyway
- For Wikipedia's Sake, We Must Stop the Sneaky Vandals
- Foxtrot Comic Equally Notes Wikipedia's "Sneaky Vandal Problem"
- So, I share my Intellectual Assets to Protect Wikipedia
- Intellectual Researchers must not be Sabotaged by Sneaky Vandals
- Let's Solve This and Protect Wikipedia's Future
Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Sneaky_Vandals.27_Anti-Polygamy_Destruction_of_Polygamy_Wiki) to read that entire section in Archive2.
Sneaky Vandals Preventing Legitimate Edits and Don't Really Want to TALK
One subsection of that last section repeated what really needs to occur. It also shows why.
- All the Sneaky Vandalism should be Rv'd back to STATUS QUO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#All_the_Sneaky_Vandalism_should_be_Rv.27d_back_to_STATUS_QUO)
- Ghostintheshell's supposed "issues" were Resolved anyway
- Nereocystis's Edit-Rampage Manufactured "Disputes" to Falsely Justify STOPPING the Wiki
- Wiki Guidelines call for STATUS QUO anyway
- For Wikipedia's Sake, We Must Stop the Sneaky Vandals
As I have long been saying, allowing the sneaky vandals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) to continue, it makes it impossible for intellectual researchers like myself to stop their sabotage and to help the wiki be valuable. As I warned, any edit that someone like myself will make will be sabotaged. Nereocystis proved my very point on that yet again after my last activities here two weeks ago, when they once again wiped out all of the work I had done (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=next&oldid=14814713) to the wiki, immediately after I had done it.
Nereocystis Proven Disingenuous about "TALKING"
Nereocystis has no intention of actually wanting to follow the Wiki Guidelines, despite their "suddenly" new and absolutely disingenuous calls for wanting to TALK about their manufactured "Disputes" first.
- Nereocystis has not once stopped in their outrageous editing rampage of destruction to the wiki, continuing on week after week with more and more edits throughout all of this.
- If Nereocystis truly believed in wanting to TALK first, they would be advocating that we follow what I have been calling for in the first place: to get back to the STATUS QUO that existed before their editing rampages of sneaky vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) rather than afterward, as they now "suddenly" demand.
That second item there really proves the heart of the matter here.
If Nereocystis genuinely wanted to follow the Wiki Guidelines and TALK first, then they would be fighting FOR what I called for originally: that we should return the wiki back to the REAL STATUS QUO before all their tag team sneaky vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) and then we can honestly start TALKING from there. But because Nereocystis only wants to do that after all their sneaky vandalisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) while trying to act as if I am somehow not wanting to follow the Guidelines, it proves their disingenuousness completely.
Because of all this, it is useless to TALK with such an "outed" hostile anti-polygamist POV sneaky vandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) such as Nereocystis. (Besides, their supposed "Disputes" were only manufactured after the fact, anyway!) So, time has proven that TALKING has proven to be useless with them. I've tried before and it has only yielded this overwhelming consumption of my time as they play these sneaky anti-polygamist tactics. For me, to do so now is like trying to negotiate with a terrorist. It simply cannot be done. They have made it clear that they will accept nothing short of continued destruction of the polygamy wiki.
Mentally Unhealthy and De-Motivating to TALK with Unapologetic Abusers
Also, it is mentally and emotionally unhealthy for anyone to let others cause such a constant state of abuse as these sneaky vandals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) have caused, as in my experience here recently. Once an abuser is absolutely proven to be an unapologetic abuser, they are never worth my time. I am too healthy for that. Truly, intellectual researchers such as myself are not motivated to put up with it or to want to return to the wiki if that is all that can be expected to occur. So this is not only about me. This is about how all other mature, emotionally healthy intellectual researchers such as myself will ultimately decide whether it's really even worth their time to offer any quality help to Wikipedia. If allowing abuse to continue is the policy, Wikipedia loses.
For Wiki Sake, These Solutions Need to Happen
Truly, if nothing is done, then more and more of us mature intellectual researchers will instead start choosing to avoid Wikipedia. After all, mature and healthy people have no desire to sustain protracted periods of abuse.
So, for the sake of the polygamy wiki, therefore, the following really needs to happen.
- The Wiki Guidelines about "not acting reckless" in this contorversial topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages#...but_don.27t_be_reckless.21) must be followed. That requires TALK discussions to start from the STATUS QUO position - not after someone else has committed sneaky vandalism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism)
- The original STATUS QUO of the polygamy article needs to be restored without attack from sneaky vandals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism)
- The entire Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Sneaky_Vandals.27_Anti-Polygamy_Destruction_of_Polygamy_Wiki) section should be restored to a prominent position in this TALK page, so as to warn and educate all contrubutors on how to spot anti-polygamists with hostile POV trying to edit the wiki destructively.
- Sneaky vandals, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_spot_vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism) such as Nereocystis, need to be removed from contributing further.
- Then the rest of us who want to make honest legitimate contributions may be glad to do so, without having to deal with much more mentally-unhealthy abuse.
It is my sincere hope that this situation can be resolved and that Wikipedia will once again be the great value I had once thought it to be!
Researcher 16:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the first thing that linking to 'sneaky vandalism' a dozen times is not going to help your case. It just looks... a little odd. Keep cool and calm.
- The second seems to be that the issue you are upset about here is that someone edited this page. Well, that happens on wikis. "Be bold" is not a suicide pact.
- Finally, if you have a content related dispute here, please concentrate on that and that alone. You can only object to edits or existing content if they break the core content rules of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources.
- If you do wish to make objections under those policies, please keep them brief and clear. Writing vast reams of text does you no favours. Dan100 (Talk) 17:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I support all that Dan100 has said. Tom Haws 03:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)