Hi, and welcome to my user talk page! I really like hearing from other editors, so feel free to add your comments. I also welcome criticism, but please do your best to remain polite and try hard to assume good faith, just as you would if we were talking face to face. Comments that ignore these fundamental community standards, or comments from editors who've shown a pattern of ignoring them in the past may be deleted without reply. Also, if I left you a message on your talk page, please answer on your talk page. If you leave me a message here, I'll answer here on my talk page. This keeps a discussion in one place, so much easier to follow. Thanks! Ohiostandard (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words at the review! I appreciate them more than I can adequately express -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Thanks again for your dedication to improving the encyclopedia. Ohiostandard (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Happy to help out - I cannot remember how that one ended up on my watchlist, but now that it's there it might as well stay. Nice work with the notability discussion on the talk page, very well reasoned and exactly on point. I wish there were more editors round here who took the time to do such research and explain it so well! And thanks for the offer of nominating me for an Rfa - you are not the first to ask, and I think I will probably get round to it a little later this year. The problem is dedicating the appropriate amount of time to the process, and at the moment things IRL are a little hectic! – ukexpat (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for your kind words. I do understand "a little hectic!" I'm nothing like so prolific as you are here, and I receive only sporadic requests for assistance from new users. But I often hear the siren call, e.g. "I'll just look into this one small thing," only to look up a few hours later and realize I've spent more time than I'd intended. But it does seem to me that BLPs merit special care, and it's certainly a pleasant way to beguile a few hours, besides. Thanks again, Ohiostandard (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your posting at ANI, where you expressed caution about possible OUTING. Since the creator of this article is making no effort to keep his identity private here, I suggest that you go ahead and offer this matter for review, especially at WP:COIN. (User:Aldinuc admits here that he is the designer of Fastflow). My own opinion is that the article needs reliable sources to show that other people have taken notice of the technology. If no such evidence can be found, an WP:AFD may eventually be needed. The fact that the creator is editing the article on his own software may not be a fatal objection if he will cooperate in finding the needed sources. I also don't like his creating links to Fastflow in other articles, which he has done on a large scale starting May 17. Nobody has posted anything other than templated messages at User talk:Aldinuc in the last several months. The possibilities for discussion are far from exhausted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

( Please note: The posting at ANI referred to above is now here. Ohiostandard (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC) ) [reply]

Thanks very much for your comment, EdJohnston. I see I was too hasty to mark the ANI discussion as "resolved" in just 50 minutes, after only one editor had replied. Sorry I didn't give you and other administrators a more reasonable time to comment. Thanks, too, for the link to Aldinuc's disclosure that he was a designer of what we're all calling "Fastflow", for now. I'd missed that. I certainly agree with you that this merits additonal discussion, and do intend to follow up on the matter. I've been a little slow to do that, but I promise I'll get to it soon. Best, Ohiostandard (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comprehensive analysis on the sentence "I didn't disagree with you." It helps me a lot. I am curious to know whether you are a mathematian:) Best.--刻意(Kèyì) 22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. I enjoyed the process very much, so thank you for the opportunity, and for your kind words, also. Because I like to keep a discussion on just one page, though, I have copied what you wrote, above, to your talk page. I have also replied further, there. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been helping at the help desk for going on five years, and I think your response to my post was one of the nicest I've ever seen.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess this means my dairy products will be okay for awhile? ;-) Thank you for taking time to post to my talk page, in addition to providing so clear and concise an explanation at the help desk. I appreciate the courtesy. I'm surprised to hear that my words of appreciation were at all unusual there. Perhaps new users assume that help desk volunteers are paid Wikipedia employees? Whatever the reason, it always surprises me to find that many users fail to recognize and acknowledge how much dedication and work from others their own ability to contribute actually rests on.

I often hear Wikipedians express pride about their high edit counts, the many articles they've created, & etc., and that's understandable. But I do wish it were more generally recognized that this wonderful place would necessarily implode of its own weight in the absence of so much behind-the-scenes generosity. And I wish more contributors here would follow your lead and help out in the vital infrastructure work that's required to keep things here running well. It seems to me that your own work here is exemplary in this way.

By "exemplary" I mean:

• You create compelling articles. ( I'd very much like to make the acquaintance of a few Goodfellow's Tree-kangaroos. I had no idea such a delightful animal existed. And your article about the film Anguish scared me all by itself, without even seeing the movie! )

• You help new users with an admirable patience and painstaking clarity, and

• You also work to keep the engines running smoothly behind the scenes in a score of underappreciated but crucial ways.

I've thought several times previously of saying some of this, but I hadn't interacted with you directly before, and it would have been too much of a liberty, coming from a complete stranger. But I'm very glad to have an appropriate opportunity to say so now. So thank you, again, for your extraordinary dedication to this remarkable enterprise, and for your very generous work to sustain and improve it so consistently and for so long. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to help. SharedIP templates are easy to add if you install the "Friendly" gadget. I love Twinkle, Friendly and refTools, they really make life here a lot easier. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you stopped my confirmed status due to my actions, but the problems on the other case has been solved so what of my rights??? (BlackImperial (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, sorry about that. ( Explosion of lightning and deafening clap of thunder, here. ) You're now confirmed. Is that better? ;-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also like to read Fastily's comment about your request on WP:Requests for permissions, the part where he says, "You are autoconfirmed." If you don't know what that means, enter the text wp:autoconfirmed into the search box you'd use to search for an article. The "wp" prefix tells the search function to search not in mainspace, where all our articles are stored, but to search in the space where all the rules and resources and policies and pages meant for editors are stored. Try it with other words or terms you don't understand, too, e.g. try wp:indent, or wp:agf, or wp:watchlist, or wp:reliable, and see what happens. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reported our friend(s) here. Each was blocked for two weeks, again.

"I went to the police, like a good American. These two boys were brought to trial. The judge sentenced them to three years in prison -- suspended sentence. Suspended sentence! They went free that very day! I stood in the courtroom like a fool. And those two bastard, they smiled at me. Then I said to my wife, "for justice, we must go to Don Corleone.""

Maybe next time. --CliffC (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I'll never understand why WP is so soft on vandalism. How many times would a person be allowed to go into a library and vandalize the books before he was banned? Yet users here get ten, twenty, thirty chances to reform. I could understand it if these IP addresses were dynamic, but they're obviously static, have obviously been assigned to the same person for something like three years. Another user suggested some time ago that we consider contacting a public liason officer or some such in the vicinity ... I know it would require great care to do that correctly ( eg under wp:abuse ), but I'm beginning to think that might be the only way to end this clown's very long vandalism spree. Thanks for the quotation, though; it makes me feel better. :-) And thanks very much for making the report, too. I suppose we'll be back in touch on this in two weeks. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest filing a WP:SPI. You could resubmit all your data there. There is a chance of a longer block (up to six months, I think) if you could include enough diffs to show that the IPs are static and that abuse has been continuing for a long time. You can't expect any deep analysis when you submit at AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EdJohnston, and thanks for looking in from time to time, as well; I appreciate it. Each reporting page has its own "character", I find, but I hadn't been aware of this difference; it's good to know of it. Can we still file an SPI at this point? At least three admins were aware of the IP using one of his addresses to evade a block ( see ANI report here and admin talk page here). I was probably at blame for being too verbose in that first one; I tried to do too much with the ANI report, and that made it harder to follow than was strictly necessary. But I'm concerned that since it's already been through ANI once recently, that people might get annoyed with a new report, at SPI. Also, although this person did use his IP to evade a block (and was sanctioned for that at ANI), I don't think he's really trying to conceal the connection between 138.162.8.57 and 138.162.8.58 in his most recent offenses. Comments? Thanks again,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody will complain about an SPI filing; it helps keep the records straight. In your submission you could note that you are asking for a longer block than the ones previously given, based on the more complete story you are providing. You can notify the previous blocking admin if you wish. It seems that you possess more background knowledge of the issue than you gave at ANI, and the SPI report would allow room to present that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This site is probably the best out there. Dismas|^(talk) 10:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a great resource! I've been looking for something like this for a good long while. Very generous of you to follow up with this; thanks so much. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Enjoy! Dismas|^(talk) 10:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, just for my own reference, because I like one of its "quick-lookup" pages, I'm going to remind myself about this site, here too, and link to the help desk thread in which Dismas answered a question I'd posted that ended up being about an html tag, as well. Thanks again, Dismas; I sincerely appreciate your generosity, both here and at the help desk. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can I order the CliffNotes version please? :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. I know it's bad form to be so verbose. But that was the CliffNotes version. :P  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your comments at ANI, well said and good on you for keeping the larger picture in view. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Well said, and well done. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly well grounded comments, and they cheered me no end. Your humanity and sensitivity are inspiring. Best. Haploidavey (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will you look at that! You stay away a few days, and just look at the kinds of things people say behind your back! ;-) Nuujinn, Tony Fox, Haploidavey, and ClovisPt, Jimmy, and TheDJ from ANI, too: I'm very grateful for your generous comments, grateful, and humbled by them, too. One of the things I like most about contributing to Wikipedia is that I'm often struck by a clear sense of being in the presence something like greatness here.

Thank you all for bringing your experience, your careful scholarship, your wit, your good will, your integrity and dedication, and your willingness to freely share all that with the world, here, to make that possible. And thanks, especially, to you, Nuujinn, for the barnstar! It's meaningless in itself, of course, just a pleasant graphic, but my knowledge of the extremely high and painstaking standards that you exhibit in all your contributions here makes it very meaningful to me, indeed. Best thanks, all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently voted against renaming the Communist terrorism article. Could you please provide a source that defines/explains what communist terrorism is. TFD (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TFD. Thanks for asking; it's a compelling question from my perspective, and I'll be very pleased to discuss it with you: I've been impressed with your contributions that I've seen across multiple articles, and would be pleased to hear more of what you think on the topic, as well. I'm afraid I have to be offline for several hours, however, but I did want to just give this quick reply, for now, to acknowledge your query. More to follow as soon as possible. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't provide a source for a definition, or explain what the phrase might mean. "Communist terrorism" as an article title is far too broad, imo, but "Leftist terrorism" seems even worse to me. Both seem to me to be made-up phrases, and too broad/vague to be of any real use. We might just as well have articles named "Rightist torture" or "Leftist assassination". I'd support the deletion of any article so broadly named that came up at AfD. Just to mention a single and relatively minor objection among many, when I think of "communism" what comes to mind first for me are examples that predate Marx and Engels by centuries. The rules pertaining to the establishment of "compagnie" (various spellings) during the Middle Ages come to mind, as does the practice of the early Christian church as reported in the Acts of the Apostles, 2:44 and following verses, “All who believed were together, and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.” An even more homely example: Most married couples in the West practice communism in the sense of "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs," and usually in their common ownership of assets, as well.

But if an editor wants to make the case that any prominent figure in the 19th-century political and economic theory that appropriated the word "communism" was a supporter of terrorism then let him do so at the biographical article for that figure. Or if people want to write about the horrors perpetrated by individual national dictators who claimed to be inspired by Marx's and Engels' ideas then let them do so in articles specifically devoted to those particular dictators; such additions would be specific enough to improve the encyclopedia. I'm not really familiar enough with the lives and writings of Marx and Engels to render any definitive opinion about whether they might have supported terrorism, although I'm very inclined to doubt that based on the little I've read. But I do know that merely claiming inspiration from a particular authority doesn't make it so, and that self-professed followers of a cause don't always exemplify its founder's beliefs. If everyone who claimed to adhere to a particular creed did in fact accurately exemplify its founder's principles, we'd be logically compelled to rename our article on, say, The Inquisition, to something like "Christian terrorism", a title that would, of course, just be ridiculous.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not watch your page and missed your comments. Many thanks for replying. Writers on terrorism use typologies for different types of terrorism, including left-wing terrorism. Christian terrorism is seen as a subtype of religious terrorism. I do not know why they would use the term left-wing rather than communist but my guess is that most of these groups were not connected with Communist Parties and their ideologies might be difficult to categorize. Some of them are not very clear thinkers anyway. The term "Communist terrorism" however is not used in any consistent way. Mostly it was used by Western governments to describe insurgencies during the 1950s and 1960s, particularly for the Malayan Emergency. Otherwise the term is used sporadically.

The article was created by User:Mamalujo, who cut and pasted sections on various groups and wrote an unsourced lead.[1] Over the years no one has been able to produce a reliable source that provides a definition.

TFD (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for your reply. Half the problem I have is with the word "terrorism". It's no longer a useful word, imo: it has come to be used so broadly that that in most people's minds now I think a "terrorist" means "anyone who fights against my side and who doesn't wear a uniform." Roughly the same usage reliable sources give to the word, "insurgent", I think.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback concerning the Christine O'Donnell article, but I'm a bit confused about your definition of overlinking. As far as I am aware, notable people such as George H.W. Bush and concepts important to the article (such as O'Donnell's Irish heritage and evangelical faith) need to be linked. Therefore, I linked them. Am I missing something? Treybien (talk) 12:27 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on this page. Would you mind posting your reply there, also? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohio. Thanks for helping to resolve the issues at the Pamela Geller article. I think we only need to work out one more thing, which is if and how to mention the Second Temple. I raised a couple questions in the discussion; would you mind responding over there? Also, I know you have some concerns about the links; I haven't addressed them yet because I expect the questionable link won't be needed in the version that we are moving toward. If that link is an issue, I'll certainly address your concerns. Thanks. guanxi (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohio - I want to take your concerns into account and I appreciate your heroic attempt to compromise with Epeefleche, but I'm not seeing where you are headed. If you succeed in compromise with E., it will be only you and Epeefleche who agree, with almost all others wanting to remove the quote and go with option C (I prefer A, but I get to compromise too). Then what? It seems like we'd still be at the same consensus for C, though it would be a little weaker.

Perhaps being later to the discussion, you're not aware of the history: Epeefleche reverted several times and tendentiously edited the quote into the article in the middle of the discussion; only Epeefleche claims that WP:SYN applies, and many others, including an Admin's outside opinion, think E. is being uncooperative and disingenuous. I tried several times to compromise with E. already, and he/she ignored my attempts. guanxi (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, but I prefer to keep the discussion on the article talk page. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I was actually in the process of looking at the diffs and talk page and refs for Heim Theory when the "new message" bar showed up for this notification. Not quite sure yet, more info to review, but will probably comment at ANI. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Dougweller has opened a new thread on WP:ANI about this [2] following the return of Terra Novus after his one week block. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OhioStandard! I was too slow. ;-) Just wanted to revert according to WP:ELNO #13, but #5 fits as well. Alfie↑↓© 13:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alfie! It's good to hear from you, thanks! I've been avoiding the work of revising the MedCan article, as you know. I keep thinking about it, especially about categorizing claimed benefits according to how well-supported they are (or aren't!) by the science. My life has been very hectic the past many months, but things should settle down in December and subsequently; time for some real work, soon, I think, including revisiting the information you so generously provided in the thread that began as a discussion about the affect of cannabis on hippocampal acetylcholine. Of course, if I delay attending to the article much longer there might not be anything left; I see SandyGeorgia has been busily deleting cites after her earlier wholesale "medrs" tagging. I think a better approach would be to use those refs to place a particular claim in the appropriate category, myself. ( End of rant ;-)

I hope you're well; I miss our exchanges, if you'll excuse me for speaking so personally. I'm afraid I was a disappointing interlocuter since I didn't allocate time to learn enough about our topic, didn't undertake any degree of study commensurate with the richness and complexity of our discussion. As some very small compensation, for now, this thread may amuse or interest you. I presented quite a jumble of pseudoscientific conjecture in my final post, sheer speculation, and not very carefully done at all, but such things interest me greatly. I think we're all much more influenced by the hunter-gatherer phase of our species' development than is generally recognized. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OhioStandard! I'm still watching the MedCan article, but must confess that I just try to revert plain vandalism. Since a while I'm using WP:Huggle to work on RC. You wouldn't believe the amount of nonsense showing up (roughly one IP edit every two seconds). I miss our exchanges as well – have been the best I had in WP by far! THX for your personal report; was quite amusing. From my personal experience I would support your speculations. Your friend should start with Beethoven's symphonies and continue with Gustav Mahler's – a lot of parallel levels to discover. ;-) Alfie↑↓© 17:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, OhioStandard, I did not see a button to push to leave a new message, so I hope this is okay. I wanted to thank you for not assuming I was girl, because of my user page. I think, maybe if you had a more sterotypical mind, you might assume I was a dude, so thanks for being openminded. That shows tolerance, and I think that is tres cool. Which means very cool in French. :) (Alos, I apologize if I messed up this "mail" section.AdbMonkey (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mais bien sur! Tres domestique! Which means, more or less, "What a pleasant message!" Thanks, and no worries re the formatting; I should probably add a "send me a message" button. Somwhere on the page when you're viewing a talk page you should find a "new section" button or tab that's "clickable", that'd be the one you want. ( I can't tell you exactly where to look, because I'm using a non-standard user interface, and I've forgotten now, what the default one looks like. ) Alternatively, you can always click "edit" on the final message on the page, as I presume you did, here, and then begin your section with == New message == or whatever section title you want for your addition. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		For your impeccable analysis at ANI of another editors actions and probable motives. I think it puts the actions in perspective nicely The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RA; I appreciate this, very much. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How very kind, Nuujinn! Thanks for thinking of me! I'm afraid real-life responsibilities have kept me away for some time, but I look forward to things calming down that way in the next couple of months, and hope to have the pleasure of working with you again in the coming year. My very best wishes to you for 2011. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very considerate response OhioStandard. Wikipedia needs more such admins like you. Good Luck and God Bless. Boolyme ^Talk!! 08:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I am constantly impressed by the scholarly nature of your arguments. Here's to you! NickCT (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		The article hasn't been changed since your last edit. Thanks -- 06:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 69.22.179.83 (talk)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for encouraging me to stick to my promises in my work on Wikipedia.   Novus  Orator  05:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I AM HAULING YOU TO AN/I RIGHT NOW PREPARE TO BE BANNED, SUCKA

p.s. lol jk :P l'aquatique[talk] 18:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to it extremely, l'aquatique! Thanks for your comment; it makes me glad to know that my admittedly warped sense of humor finds at least some kindred folk throughout the world. Lord knows it finds little-enough appreciation at home! "A prophet in his own country", and all that, I suppose. ;-) I wonder, though: Are we obliged to inform Sarek of this thread? Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking emotion, I am sure he would not appreciate its nuances! Anyway, my intention was mostly to remind you that even though there are a lot of people who take themselves way too seriously, I'd have something to say to someone who really thought it'd be appropriate to make a fuss about a little joke. I can block you if you really want me to, though. l'aquatique[talk] 18:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right, re Sarek, and I appreciate the reminder and the support, too, very much. I never really grooved to the whole S&M thing, though, so I think I'll have to pass on the block. But it was really nice of you to offer! Thanks!  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Help Award
		In tremendous appreciation for your helpfulness on my talk page, in working on User:Tomaca's question. I am very grateful for your kindness to her and to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm on my way back from a somewhat stressful (and expensive! :P) vet visit thinking about her and what I might say or do to help out (I have asked for eyes of a few people at Google chat, but nobody has had time and I haven't wanted to ask at COI, which sometimes seems to predispose people to negativity), and I get in to find you courteously and informatively addressing her. Truly, that's fabulous. Thanks so much for helping out. :) I'll reply at my talk page, too, but your assistance was so heartening to me that I just had to come over here and say so, in pictoral fashion. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. I'd avoid looking at this lady too closely, because she's a bit scary. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Wow, thanks for this! There's not an editor on Wikipedia whose approbation I could value more than I do yours; I'm very grateful. And you're welcome, of course, for the offer to try to help the user. I'm actually very greatly impressed that you were willing to do so yourself when you already have so very much on your plate related to copyright matters.

May I also just say that I hope your pet will be alright? I don't have one myself right now ( although my girlfriend's cat clearly regards my lap as her own private furniture ) but I've been nearly as attached to some pets as I have to people, and I know how it feels when one is unwell.

You really shouldn't have told me that the nurse was scary, though. Of course that just prompted me to view the image at full 3,582 × 4,797 resolution. She's either an evil zombie vampire nurse, or she just had her brains sucked out by a ghoul. If it's not one or the other, then I suppose the only other explanation is that she spent too much time trying to improve articles on climate change or politics. Thanks again for this thoughtful notice, very much. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my slip-up at Richard A. Falk and sorry for briefly messing up the lead. I guess the lesson is not to edit articles while watching basketball games on TV.—Biosketch (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, but good of you to say so; thanks. I'd bet that a very high percentage of us multitask for one-off edits of that sort. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 70's era Norton Commando can be dialed in to fit someone 6'8" and the Ducati sport-classics can be fitted out with "rear sets" and taller shocks to accommodate a taller rider. (I asked around this week) I still think the BMW is the best bet. Cheers- V7-sport (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your suggestions very kindly, V7 thank you! I'll certainly investigate these possibilities. I have yet to sit on the BMW, but I'm pretty favorably disposed in its direction, too. Thanks very much for passing along this additional information; I appreciate your generosity in doing so very much indeed. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wish I could work with you on removing the misleading conclusions, but an editor keeps complaining to admins that I edit the article out of spite or something. Anyways I hope you keep with it and take your points to WP:NPOVN where you will hopefully get a non-biased opinion and I also suggest a tag is added as the dubious claims being made in the lead are very serious. Passionless -Talk 23:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you know from the analysis of the sources cited that I presented on the article's talk page, I share your concerns. I haven't given up on it, though; I've been spending considerable time examining the sources further, actually. I'll probably edit it again, based on that. I appreciate your suggestion re the NPOVN, but I frankly don't see that board as a very useful resource. Maybe its traffic is too low, but posts seem to languish there for long periods with no uninvolved editors expressing an opinion. Nor do I see much good in tagging the article at this point. It certainly presents a very "selective" view of the facts, to put it gently, but just tagging it without putting in the considerable effort that would be needed to address the article's problems comprehensively would just stir up trouble, in my opinion, without any productive outcome likely to result.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Truscott: I think if the disruption continues on Truscott you might have to request semi protection, its probably the same person , someone with a grudge, this is a clear WP:COI - this IP from User_talk:12.33.141.36 is from http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us and the other single issue account is prolly them at home Contributions/173.52.113.72 - Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rob! Thanks for reverting that; I was in the process of composing a novel to the New Jersey IP on his talk page when you reverted, and had also intended to revert when I saw that you'd beat me to it. I've thought of semi-protection, too, of course, but haven't requested it for a couple of reasons. Probably the most important one is that I have reason to believe that someone closely associated with the subject has been editing as an IP and via various sequential socks for a long while.

As you know, we normally discourage people from that kind of COI editing, but I'd like to avoid shutting the article to IPs for his sake, in this case, since I think we'll need his active participation if we're ever to reach a stable version. I'll probably suggest to the IP I'm thinking of that he create a new account under which to disclose what I assume might be his COI at some point, since he's expressed an interest in having the article deleted, if possible, and it's my understanding that doing so would reinforce his case. But I need to take the time to carefully present his possible options to him for proceeding with that.

I don't think the article should be deleted, btw. But I do strongly support his right to seek that, and I think it's only fair that I should help him learn as much as he can re his possible options that way, since he does seem to be pretty inexperienced in navigating our somewhat intimidating labyrinth of rules here. If he asks, and wants to proceed that way, I'd probably even be willing to help him write the AfD proposal text, unless he wants to try contacting the Foundation, first.

Also, with so many IPs having been involved re this article for so long, I'd like to allow their involvement as "full" participants in the talk page discussion we need to restart over this; I'd prefer that no one feel like a second-class participant in that discussion, if possible. And while I know it's a nuisance to have to keep reverting "scrubbing" and "damning" edits, there seem to be enough "eyes on" now to make that happen pretty quickly. If you haven't, already, you might like to look at my mea culpa on the New Jersey IP's talk page. I hope you're well, and see you soon on the Truscott talk page. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick addition: It's of course possible that our New Jersey friend has some COI, and that occurred to me too, but I don't see that there's a necessary correlation between a former DOJ (Federal Government) official and someone who apparently works for the NJ judiciary. Or have I possibly forgotten some connection Truscott had to the State of New Jersey's court system?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an open and shut case to me, He began his law enforcement career in 1980 as an Investigator for the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety - report against him is from http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0610/final.pdf and the ip is from - http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/ Its clearly not a simple passer-by, but I have no problem at all with them joining in and discussing the issue, the more the merrier. I have found that often in a case like this where a BLP is attacked repeatedly that it is often a single person with a opinionated grudge against the subject for one reason or another. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'd forgotten that. Wow, though; from 20 - 30 years ago!? If you're right about the connection and motive then that might be one for the record books.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dracey_Freeman - thoughts? - Off2riorob (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I really wish I'd seen that myself, for several reasons. I know, of course, and that your query here is perfectly in order (and I am indeed grateful to be asked my opinion) but I have to respond that I probably shouldn't contribute to the thread. I came across what looks like a pretty egregious example of canvassing today that I'll probably have to report in the next day or two. I'd prefer not to complicate that by allowing anyone even the most ridiculous of grounds to suggest that I'd done anything even remotely similar myself. I hope you'll understand this has nothing to do with you, and that you won't take offence at all; there's not the least personal imputation intended, of course. I don't at all mind saying, though, that I think you'd do well to post an immediate request for help on this one at AN or AN/I. Cordially, and with best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not really an issue for AN/I, asking for an opinion is not what WP:Canvassing is about, but its been prodded and I have doubts it will last a full seven days, no worries, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest AN or AN/I with the idea of penalizing anyone. I did so because that would be a way to quickly get the attention of someone who can delete the article immediately, instead of having to wait for a PROD to run its course. Given that the article could influence opinion re an ongoing trial, I'd even say it wouldn't be much of a stretch to e-mail oversight to get the immediate results that seem called for in this case.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its been raised to a speedy WP:A7 now which is what I was thinking, lets see it an admin accepts that and get rid of it. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice note. It is no problem to discuss such cases. I find RSN an good discussion forum in order to get my own brain around cases like this, which inevitably come up for all editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my thanks for your kind note on my Talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure: I appreciate the work you've both done at RSN, very much. It takes patience with POV-driven editors, and a willingness to really sift through a considerable volume of material to contribute well there, and you both do that admirably. I'm grateful for that; thanks again! Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to report an user you have problems with. An article's talk page is a wrong venue. Please stop discussing me there.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've talked with an admin about this, I'm soon going to take care of this situation at AE under WP:ARBPIA, alright Ohiostandard? Passionless -Talk 21:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Passionless. I have very limited experience in dealing with an editor who's this agressive. I see she's deleted the relevant talk page section a second time now, with the edit summary "wrong venue". She's almost insisting this has to be escalated: I can't understand why anyone would want to drag others into a round of drama over these insults, rather than simply saying, "Yeah, I got mad. Sorry," which I wouldn't consider a big deal.

But just deleting the talk-page section repeatedly implies to me that she plans to continue this kind of behavior. Anyway, I'm not going to restore the section a second time because I think this is getting pretty ridiculous and I don't want to fan the flames if I can help it. I'd much prefer to keep the drama to a minimum, but we really can't have editors - especially in so contentious an area - who feel free to characterize others as ... well, I'll reproduce the section she deleted (twice) below; it pretty much speaks for itself:

The above is, of course, from the talk page (permalink) for the Koby Mandell and Josef Ishran murder article. In addition to deleting this section two times, she's also twice removed the POV tag placed on the article by two different editors, and twice characterized an editor's good-faith actions as "vandalism", first in an edit summary and then again in an edit summary and corresponding talk page post. As I said, I'd like to avoid drama over this, but I haven't seen that WQA is effective for situations like this one, either, so whatever assistance you or any admin could provide would be welcome. Thanks very much,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope no one thinks this is canvassing as you are deeply, currently, involved, but I have now posted an AE about Mbz1. Passionless -Talk 00:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course it's not canvassing; I expected you'd let me know of any subsequent actions concerning this, and you're right to do so. I'd actually been considering opening an AN/I thread about Mbz1's misuse of sources. I'm not sure if I'll post that (or anything else) to the ArbCom thread you've now started, but I did notice that you'd commented there about Mbz1 having made a racist comment.

That's a very ugly word, but Roscelese isn't alone in having found it necessary to apply it to one of her comments. I suggest you look at this successful AfD for her "Blame Israel first" article. If you search that page for "17:45, 31 January 2011", and read the subsequent comments, you'll see that four editors (including myself) felt that her very harsh and ethnically-motivated attack on a reliable-source journalist merely because of his nationality merited that characterization.

She demanded that I retract the word, here on my talk page. I carefully considered the request, and then tried very gently to explain why I couldn't honor it. I'd really hoped she'd continue the discussion with me, and that we could come to some amicable resolution, but she refused to do that. You might find that AfD, and especially the subsequent discussion here ( livelink & permalink) to be relevant to your post at ArbCom. For example, despite her explicit protests to the contrary here, I remain wholly unconvinced that she'd consider a similarly accusational dismissal of comments made by a Jewish journalist as anything other than racist.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for what you said about the comment directed at me. :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to my objection to Mbz1's insulting remark about you, I suppose? You're welcome. I'm really sorry you were subjected to such unpleasantness: It makes it much less fun to try to help things along here when people make remarks like that. But good on you for not responding in kind.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification. Collect (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The foregoing applies to a thread at Wikiquette alerts begun by Collect after I made this post to the talk page of our article on an advocacy web site that represents itself as a medical journal, and objected to his behavior in a thread I began at AN/I when admin Rklawton claimed I'd undertaken a sneaky, dirty, rotten, low-life, disruptive trick at an article they both watch over. I haven't decided whether I'll respond at WQA or not, but I'd welcome the participation of any neutral editor who'd be willing to carefully examine the claims made in either venue, and would be happy to listen to whatever criticism any such editor might have to offer. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've now added my own response to the allegations that were made in that report.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, long time no talk. I saw your ANI report regarding Rklawton et al. and I thought you might be interested in a pattern I noticed. You have a tendency to write extremely long comments on ANI which works against you. In the future, you may want to simply start with a very brief executive summary linked to a longer report in your user space. Combine this with using user talk pages to respond to points in depth and you will find yourself making more efficient use of the noticeboards. I say this because I personally think you make good points and helpful comments, but they are getting lost in your verbose explication. As an expositor, you may benefit by changing your approach depending on your target audience. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Viriditas; yes, too long: I'm glad to hear from you. You're perfectly right, of course, both about the audience and about the length. I can write a pretty fair 3,000 word essay in a few hours, but cutting that down to 800 or so takes me many times as long. I was supposed to be pretty ADD when I was a kid; so maybe there are just too many salient ideas competing for attention in the old noggin. ;-) Anyway, I think I'm done for a while, although I'll probably post a closing comment to the AN/I thread. Thanks very much for your thoughts, and glad we sorted that whole debacle from earlier on, too. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhgeddaboudit. So how is medical cannabis looking these days? I think the layout and sourcing in the "Clinical applications" and "National and international regulations" sections needs work. I also think the regulations section takes up way too much room and should be condensed down into several paragraphs and split out. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I can't believe I didn't reply to this previously. Too distracted with the more-or-less obligatory replies at AN/I and WQA ( the first now archived, praise be ) - a huge waste of time, I felt, but necessary. Sorry to have been so slow, because I especially meant to thank you for what I guessed to have been your motive with your very timely and welcome kinda-invite, above. I really appreciate that; thank you. Re the literal questions themselves, that article has been a pebble in my shoe for a long while. Not that I consider it any sort of definitive consensus, but Alfie and I had previously agreed to use the sort of Hierarchy of Therapeutic Effects ranking scheme presented by Grotenhermen & Russo in 2002, to deal with the "Clinical applications" section.

Introducing such a structure into the article, and populating it according to consensus would take a lot of work, though, which is probably why it hasn't been done yet. I agree entirely with splitting out regulations to a separate article. I'm behind in the commitments I've already made here, though, so I'm going to have let that particular pebble stay in place for a while longer. Sorry, though; I think if we could all find the time that you, Alfie, and I could probably put it into decent order. You might get a kick out of looking at Alfie trying to tutor me in his area of expertise, btw. My initial goal had been to be able to determine when a research study has used a reasonable versus an unreasonable "dose" or "stimulus amount" of cannabinoids to obtain the dependent–variable results it reports. A much harder problem than it sounds, but a very pleasantly educational one, too.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing that review. While I disagree with you, I accept that you found I was wrong, so I'd like to try to solve my issues. Would you mind reviewing my comments, and my comments alone from this point onwards, and dropping me a line if you find I have crossed the line? Thanks.

Further, and not especially relevantly, you misunderstood my statement about resignation - I had previously resigned from Wikipedia, not that I was resigning on a go-forward basis. Best wishes. Hipocrite (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good of you to respond in this way, Hipocrite; I know how very difficult it is to hear criticism of one's actions without responding badly, and you've managed that in this case. I've struck out the few words I wrote in commenting about your resignation, in response to your comment here, and have explained about that in a subsequent post to the page. ( This current thread, here on my talk page, refers to the comments I posted at WQA in a thread (permalink) initiated there by Hipocrite, btw.) I can't promise to assiduously review your comments on the talk page for the relevant article, but I will try to remember to look in from time to time, and will be glad to comment if I see any parties slipping into incivility or other unproductive behavior there. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your review of Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Primary_sourced_description_of_trial. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look, and will comment briefly on the talk page. But please note that I have no ongoing interest in this article, and don't intend to become involved in its development. My interest at WQA was limited to the civility issues that were raised, and to whether the WQA filing itself was appropriate.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is rare when I am able to edit on wikipedia, but I just recently saw your thank you note on my talk page. Occasionally, I find the opportunity to share my knowledge of incredibly obscure subjects and I am glad I was able to be of some help to you. I had recently researched this issue for a court case where the question was whether a state agency action had constituted an adjudication for due process purposes. Coincidentally, your question was posted when this issue was fresh in my mind. Now if only remarkable coincidences would occur with a close family member picking a lottery number. Gx872op (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was kind of you to share the benefit of your research with me. You certainly have all my best wishes for so happy a coincidence with the lottery, as well: "Give and it shall be given unto you", as I hope. Thanks again,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OS, I think we might disagree on what's a good DYK, but maybe I do not fully understand your position. We live in the world where in some countries we are debating the wisdom of introducing gay marriage while in some other countries homosexual acts are not only illegal, but may be a capital offense. Are you saying these facts should not be exposed by Wikipedia because this will offend some people? BTW, this is not an issue of religion, since all major monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) condemn homosexuality. It is more about the relationship between law and religion in the 21st century. Also I couldn't figure out what it has to do with the ArbCom. - BorisG (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Boris! I'm pleased to see you here. You always have intelligent, insightful observations, in my experience, and I feel ... let's say "productively challenged" in my own habitual ways of thinking when I consider your comments. I've been thinking about your remarks and questions, but I want to consider them more carefully for a day or two before I reply in any significant way. I'll just say, as a preliminary response, that most of my objection has to do with quality of research for inflammatory statements, and with what I infer as intent. The mention of ArbCom has to do with the particular editor's very recent year-long topic ban by ArbCom per ARBPIA. I was saying that I doubted she had been intended to keep fanning the partisan flames in other ways, if you follow. I'm sure she doesn't see herself as doing that; I do, however. More to follow in substantive reply to your questions in a day or two. Again, thanks for your questions, and for the opportunity to discuss them intelligently. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks. This is certainly not urgent. But I just want to say that I have huge respect for Mbz1 because of her ivaluable contributions to Wikipedia, even if she cannot contain her emotions at times. And, in my view, contributions to DYK should be considered on their merits, not with respect to some past proceedings etc. Now I am glad not to engage in substantive debate of this complex issue for a day or two, because I am late with many urgent work-related things. In fact, I should not have even ventured into Wikipedia today, but alas, it's an addiction. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support your article. I have an idea for a Venn diagram that would make a good illustration. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's a definite possibility our new friend is a sock, but I don't know the editors in this topic area so well. Any clue who it might be? Or is it too early to tell? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check your e-mail often? I'd prefer not to try to run a potential sock to ground in public... Um, okay; that is an odd visual, I admit. ;-) Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, will do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry that you think I'm trying to attack Muslims here. I wish you would assume good faith on my part, I actually nominated the page because "Jihad" and "Tourism" sound like opposites and I found it funny to see them side by side. I seldom edit in Israel or Islam related issues unless someone asks me to copyedit one for them or if one is up for deletion (since I'm a raving inclusionist and all). Actually, I only got interesting in this article once it was put up for deletion right after it was created. Also, I've contributed hooks like this and this in the past.

Anyway, I think instead of trying to remove hooks relating to Jihad we should try to work together to make them as NPOV and Encyclopedic as possible. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an odd half-sentence after your signature here. What's up with that? tedder (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually part of Fintor's post at 10:30 4 May 2011 (UTC); he was quoting from my previous post, to indicate what part of that he was responding to, except he didn't use quotation marks, and did use a kind of unusual indentation. I can't imagine he'd object if you wanted to refactor, place quote marks, change indenting, preface it with "You wrote ...", or whatever. I'd approve of that, myself. I understood his intent, because I recognized the fragment as my own words, having written them, but I doubt others are quite so enamored of my writing that they'd "get it".  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same part? I'm talking about the text that is "accept anything remotely this advert/promotional that's cited to". I don't see that it existed before your edit. tedder (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"How galling it is to discover that something one was sure was the other fellow's error was, in fact, one's own." — Nicolas Bourbaki

Thanks for your persistence in bringing this to my attention. My own editing artifact, after all; you were quite right. Corrected now. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! At least I didn't invoke Muphry's Law in the process. tedder (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given my thick-headedness throughout ( double-entendre intended re 'throughout' ) I think doing so would have been my roll... And if you took my roll, that would be as bad as stealing someone's bread, man. ;-) Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone says, correct me if I'm wrong. Not many really mean it. Everyone wants apologies. But you don't see many. A lot of the fun of WP is the stimulating debate. Sometimes not so much. It's good to be able to laugh and move on. I tilt at windmills, too. Cheers, Msnicki (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Um, thanks for sharing?

(b) What?

(c) Are you worried WMF is running out of storage bytes and we're hastening the crisis?

(d) What?

Pick any three.  – OhioStandard (talk)

Apologies. I'm trying very hard to drop a stick but couldn't resist smiling that you're having the same communication problem I had. I expected you'd connect this up with your remarks here. I should have given you the link. Msnicki (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. Missed the user name, and hadn't refreshed my watchlist recently-enough to notice the reply. I thought you were referring to the immediately-preceding thread on this page. Yup, what you said. Damn windmills! Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy your writing. Use your imagination of how we might laugh over a beer under different circumstances. Msnicki (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was a great! Thanks for the suggestion!  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never met anyone like you before. I mean, I've met girls who snort once or twice when they laugh, but not that loudly, and for minutes on end. It was really endearing, although I'm sorry the beer went up your nose. Don't worry about the photographs, though: It's just a small, local paper, and no one will recognize you with the tablecloth over your head, when we go back for the grapes. I doubt the nickname will even stick. And besides, if we'd stayed we'd never have found the Don Esteban in time for the priest, or met Pablo, either, and then where would the village have been?  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually more of an acquired taste. Msnicki (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say, o Efalante.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:47 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have me there. I suppose I might be confused with a Heffalump, but more frequently with an unmade bed. What's funny is when someone gets a joke only enough to think it's funny, not enough to know what it's about. Msnicki (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute; I'm glad I have you there, but were you asking me to share the details with you? How I can possibly tell a pleasant but essentially unknown woman about so highly personal a memory, and one that I, at least, will always cherish? Don't misunderstand: I couldn't be more grateful to you for agreeing to the trip in the first place and making the whole adventure possible − especially after the debacle in New York it was really generous of you. But you're asking a very great deal, you know.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( Note to self: Maybe don't make next girl who wants share fictional beer into fictional snorting Heffalump. 20:38, 10 May 2011 UTC )

You've got mail. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do fully recognize the dilemma, and can imagine − and sympathize with − the frustration it could give rise to. I'm genuinely sorry that's so, but I nevertheless feel very reluctant about replying by e-mail in this instance, for multiple reasons. I don't mind saying here, though, that at first I wasn't going to document the matter further, but then thought better of that and did so at the appropriate page. You might like to examine the second link I provided there.

I'll also say that I, too, know from experience how very hard it is to accept the consequences of something when one feels those consequences were very unfair. But without wishing to be patronizing in any way, I'd respectfully suggest that it might be better for your peace of mind if you were to consider removing large portions of your watchlist to a separate file for now, to be reinstated at some appropriate time. I'll also say that although I do check my e-mail pretty much daily, at least, and although I have no intrinsic or personal objection at all to your using it when you feel the need, I'd also gently suggest that that it might not be the best plan for you to avail yourself of it, if you can help doing so.

On a completely unrelated note, you know how much I admire your nature photos. A fragment of verse came to me the other day that seems especially apt re some of your macro shots, and I hope you won't mind if I post that to your talk. Let me know if you object, since I recall that you once asked me not to post there. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two more messages, I find ...

The first with an explanation, the second fourteen hours later with a flame thrower for not having responded soon enough to suit you.

Well, I still won't reply by e-mail, for obvious reasons, but despite the renewed insults I remain sensitive to your difficulty. Further, I think you have a reasonable right to be able to respond in this instance. Would you have any objection if I were to ask the appropriate persons to allow you to post, say, a 300 word explanation on the relevant page?

You're still welcome to use e-mail, if you'll drop the insults, although I'd prefer that you reply here, if you feel you can do so with discretion. I'm not going to post a talkback to your talk page, though, since you've renewed your request that I not post to there. Since you're evidently so hot about this, I'll warn you in advance that it looks like I'll have little or no time within the next 16 hours, at least, that I can spend online. You should not take that personally; I have RL responsibilities, not just responsibilites here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you put the NPOV tag back on the "Start-up" article and pulled it back out of the DYK prep area. The people working on it have done so with good faith in a collaborative way. I agree with you that Mbz's original statement about mixed reviews would be good to have back in the lead. OTOH, an author section is not standard in similar articles. Furthermore, if we did included author info said info should be NPOV, which I don't really think was the case for the info previously offered about Senor. a lot of hard work has gone into that article by some very good people, os I hope you will soon be able to remove your objection. betsythedevine (talk)

Actually, I don't think it did get "mixed" reviews - although I only quickly scanned the sources involved, I didn't see much in the way of negative commentary at all. More importantly though, I think you should withdraw your objection - yes, there are some outstanding issues but DYK articles are not expected to be GAs. I did add an "author" section that was deleted, but as I'm not sure of the usual practice in regards to book articles, and am certainly not about the conduct a survey, I think the article should be given the benefit of the doubt in that respect. Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy, Gato: Something's come up that will keep me offline for some while. I would very much like the opportunity to try to address the issues both Sean and I raised, but as I say, I have no time. I understand there's some kind of time pressure re DYK; I don't know what that is, and don't have time to check right now. And while I strongly dislike the idea that editorial process should be driven by the desire for a DYK credit, I don't want to be obstructionist, either. If a drop-dead date for DYK candidacy is imminent, i.e. within the next 48 hours, and Sean also agrees, then I'd not object to the tag being removed. It seems pretty lame to me that editorial process should be subordinated in any way to the timing of the DYK process, but I suppose I can understand how people get charged up about that, too. Btw, Besty, I think Gato's author info was fine. He didn't create the author's resume, after all. Would like to see something about Singer, too. No time to say more, though.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1 sent me some email on this issue. Your recent edit makes a charge of deception against Mbz1 concerning Civilian casualty ratio. How do you know that is a purposeful attempt to deceive, rather than a mistake? If you don't have evidence, I suggest you modify the language used in your statement, including the section header. Evidence might consist of a person admitting that a certain reference didn't back the statement, but adding it anyway. In her email, Mbz1 observes that this exact language is still included in 1982 Lebanon War. She copy-pasted the sentence from the other article, taking the source with it, even though the two don't match when you read the source.

This is a mistake in the other article. It was introduced on 22 February, 2010 in this diff by an IP editor who only made three edits ever.

Mbz1 is responsible for the correctness of the changes she makes, and this was evidently a lapse on her part, since she didn't consult the source. But the charge of intentional deception should be withdrawn, in my opinion. The article on 1982 Lebanon War ought to be fixed. The wrong statement is still there in the first sentence of 1982 Lebanon War#Precursors to war. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ed, for your help on this. I've been trying to figure out how to address this without appearing to act on information that Mbz1 isn't allowed to communicate, and also in accordance with my serious concern that what she says she did is consistent with an ongoing pattern I've observed. As you'll see from a previous section on this my talk page (link/permalink) Mbz1 sent me three e-mails about this. In the first she asked for a clarification, but also said she was using e-mail because she was concerned that asking me about this on talk could be perceived as a topic-ban violation. Since she evidently trusts you, and since I do, too, I'd like you to see those e-mails, and let you compare them to my responses I posted here on my talk. May I send them to you, or will you ask Mbz1 to do so?

I wasn't willing to respond to Mbz1 directly by e-mail because she had been pretty insulting a short while before on Gatoclass' talk page, (full context), where he's been kind of mentoring her re her topic ban, and previously, as well, before she was topic banned. ( I'm "stupid and cruel", evidently, because I previously objected to her pulling quotes in what I considered a skewed manner. ) But among other concerns, I didn't feel I could trust her not to misrepresent private communications subsequently, I'm sorry to say.

I did and do understand why she's upset, of course. But I proposed the idea of giving her an opportunity to explain on the relevant talk page in part because I wanted to see whether she would accept any responsibility at all for what she's said she did. I do believe her, actually, and did right away, although the situation was complicated by my seeing both her second and third e-mails at once. But it's also been my impression, to speak candidly, that she doesn't give a hang what a source says or where it comes from, as long as she can somehow get it into an article to support what she perceives are Israeli interests. Here's just one example of what I mean. I could give you many more, some even more outrageous.

It's likewise my impression that this most recently-discovered problematic edit cannot reasonably be considered a simple, good-faith mistake. Or perhaps, to put it in a way that's more considerate, to the extent that it can be, it's not any kind of mistake that I think she cares about at all, relative to the advantage of getting some content into an article that's favorable to her POV.

Take a look, for example, at the "sources" for the Abraham Reuel article she created. I noticed this a while ago; it really needs to be AfD'd, but I haven't wanted to deal with it because she's so aggressive and indignant, and dealing with that gets tiresome. The only two sources that actually refer to the subject of this article are A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes and a "Convert to Judaism" web site that appears (?) to have taken its narrative from the same book. Thats not the only problem. I've extensively searched both English and (to the very limited extent I'm able) German language sources, and haven't been able to confirm the existence of this person, under either his original German name or his later-adopted Jewish one. Finally, she apparently threw this article together so quickly that she got the subject's adopted (Jewish) name wrong. The sources, such as they are, speak of a "Reuel Abraham", not "Abraham Reuel". I'm afraid this just reinforces my somewhat jaded view that Mbz1 is typically so focused on "getting the message out" for Israel that the integrity of the encyclopedia re anything to do with Judaism comes in a far distant "second" for her.

( Late-edit comment: The Abraham Reuel article was taken to AfD by another editor. While it was there a single wp:rs was found for it by a different editor. 12:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC) )

I've tried many times, both here on my talk (see other sections) and on article talk pages, to try to engage her to address this and related concerns, and she's never been willing to stick around to do that. At this point, I'd prefer to hear what she has to say about this than to unilaterally apologize for what I see as being properly attributable to a consistent pattern of editing behavior on her part. If she won't speak up about that, with civility, and you have no interest in addressing the ongoing problem, either, I suppose I'd be willing to post a clarification to the page, citing your statement, above. But she's not likely to be especially happy with any such clarification that I could, in good conscience, post at this point.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: As scorching as her third e-mail is, and as derisive as are the other comments she made to me on Gatoclass' talk page, I don't want her blocked. I might ask for that at some point if, once we resolve this particular problem, she were to repeat anything remotely similar in the future. But I assume she's still smarting from her topic ban, and I think that merits some consideration. I wonder, btw, if she ever noticed that I didn't pile on in the discussion that led to her topic ban? I didn't comment there at all. I did think she brought that on by her own actions, almost deliberately as it seemed to me, but I don't like seeing anyone tarred and feathered, either, and I didn't want to be a part of that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what the hell. This doesn't close this matter, by any means: the behavioral problem re sources I've described above cannot continue. But I don't mind offering an olive twig at this point, either, if it'll help that happen.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The boot is rather on the other foot, I should say. I've been humming the, "Oh, I'm happy not to be an admin!" song intermittently all day today. I'd line up the shots for you and many of your very longsuffering extra-bit colleagues this evening, if I could.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been reading all the many comments others have left here expressing admiration for your courage, perseverance, and hard work. As well as, of course, the evidence for a few people who very much resented something you said.

I want to thank you for your courageous participation in trying to ensure that DYK articles really adhere to NPOV. I know you are disappointed about the issues that still remain at Start-up Nation, not to mention the uncivil comments made by a few on your hypothetical motivation. Still, the article is much, much better than it was when I flagged it as POV, and the people who collaborated there were really making a sincere effort to acknowledge concerns about the article.

I hope you are also cheered to see that increased attention to DYK's policy has been invoked to eject unbalanced articles on unrelated topics, for example Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Women_in_Vietnam. So keep on being the admirable person you are and if you feel discouraged, look back at this talk page to be reminded how many people respect you for your principled but civil efforts to make Wikipedia as good as it can be. betsythedevine (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Betsy. I shouldn't deceive you, though; I posted all the above comments myself, to elicit just such a reaction to my talk page. ;-) Seriously, I appreciate your remarks here, very much.

I know you didn't agree with many of the concerns I expressed about the article, but may I ask if you noticed the information I posted to the now very long talk page about why Israel would naturally have more Nasdaq listings than, say, Germany or Japan? It's simply that those countries have robust capital markets of their own, and Israel doesn't, as I discovered from the Milken Institute report that I added to article talk. The companies of those nations don't need to go abroad to go public, Israeli ones do, and the Nasdaq is their best alternative.

The Milken report was issued in 2005, right in the middle of the 2001 - 2009 interval that the book's research is based on. It presents a very different picture than the streets-paved-with-gold scenario that Start-up Nation gives us. It's true that the Milken report focuses more on small business while the book treats with mid-sized "start-ups", but the very adverse economic and business conditions that it documents in Israel impact both commercial sectors.

Do please spend 60 seconds and read at least the executive summary section of the Institute's report on the state of the start-up scene in Israel. It's available from smallbiztrends.com as this pdf. You'll be hard pressed to believe your reading about the same country.

I suspect we've done our readers a real disservice with this article. The first author of Start-up Nation is both a venture capitalist focusing on Israel, and affiliated with AIPAC. For both those reasons he's unlikely to want to present any information that's critical of the Israeli business scene: On the contrary, both roles make it very much less likely that he'd give us an objective, disinterested presentation.

And now that one of our very pro-Israel editors has dropped by the article for the first time, I see that the only one of those two factors that was disclosed in the article, Senor's AIPAC affiliation, has now been expunged. It's interesting that the fellow who just yesterday pleasantly favored me (and others?) with the pleasant terms "psychotic" and "hater" should show up at the article to expunge content, introduced by Khazar btw, for which I had been the principal proponent on talk.

Anyway, please do take at least a brief look at the Milken Institute report. I think it confirms the view that the claims made by Start-Nation that Israelis are superior in entrepreneurial ability to the citizens of every other country in the world are, indeed, "exceptional" ones that properly trigger waving a wp:redflag. I'm going to stop doing so, though. My arms are tired. ;-) But thanks again for your comments; I'm very sensible of your goodness in making them. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, if you posted all those comments at your own talk page, hurry over to my talk page and post some like that! I just got home from my first night running sound for a local theater's next production, so I've been shockingly offline for quite a few hours. Yes, I did see your information about start-ups as a metric for business success, and I think you uncovered some very interesting points but ... unless some reviewer for some WP:RS discovered and talked about those same points they absolutely don't belong in the article Start-up Nation, in my opinion. If you have the energy to write them up, they would be a good addition to the article start-up, which is a bit of a mess.

You did a lot of fine work here and I was deeply impressed by the amount of sheer brainpower that was poured out by Wikipedians over this article. I hope the near future brings you productive projects related to more interesting subject matter! Anyway, I'm just shrugging my shoulders at the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of a very few -- such editors are not typical of Wikipedia nor are they typical of the collaboration that took place at Start-up Nation, where so many good people played so much nobler roles. betsythedevine (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I of course know that we couldn't say in the article, "Israel has a high number of Nasdaq listings because its domestic stock market is underdeveloped relative to other countries so they have to go elsewhere for IPOs". I never said we should; on the contrary I said we shouldn't. I think this is about the eighth time I've said so, now. But I did say the the claim of Israeli exceptionalism re entrepreneurship required an exceptional source if we intended to use Wikipedia's voice to support it. And I said the Milken Institutes's having painted so very different a picture of the Israeli start-up scene from the authors of Start-up Nation, who have a vested interest in promoting Israel as a financial juggernaut, should give us wp:redflag pause, at least. YMMV, and apparently it does, which is fine, of course.

Running sound? I've done a bit of that: My first experience doing so was on a show with 112 sound cues, a separate physical media copy (e.g. tape) for most, some on a quadraphonic system, some on CD, some on a simple cassette deck, and me shuffling media in and out of each like a Vegas dealer whipping the cards out to a full table of players. And body mics that also had to be turned on and off at the right times, sometimes with reverb, sometimes not, and at different volumes, of course. And a completely manual mixing board - no presets - with too few channels, so I sometimes had to physically patch signals while the show was running. I'd stage-managed before, but I was definitely not prepared for doing sound like that. A large, rustic amphitheatre among the trees, too, so I'd get there at around 6:00 AM for a 2:00 show, to haul everything out from lockup backstage and lug it up that very steep incline to the sound shack at the back, and then set up and test. My calves (and nerves!) went through some serious challenges that summer. Great fun, though, too. Hope you have as much with yours, and thanks again for your pleasant comments. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk)

[stalk] And this is why I love doing opera. Absolutely no need for all that. :D Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds as though you have both done cooler stuff than I! Our previous show was a musical with a dozen-plus body-miked actors who did lots of sweaty-plus dancing, so that miking up actors required a dozen-plus condoms to keep everybody's batteries cozy and dry. (I was doing lights that show, which offered its own set of challenges, but boxes of condoms were not part of my work supply.) No body mikes this show, however, just CD tracks of crickets and birds and scene-changing music to pop on and fade out when my headset gives me the word. Table Manners is a nice easy show to learn on, and great fun to listen to when I'm not playing with switches. Would Wikipedia be better with scene-changing music to cover up the sounds of conflict, and maybe occasional birdsong to start a new day? betsythedevine (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not "cooler" stuff, I'm sure. Hi Rosclese! Betsy, I love your phrase, "sweaty-plus dancing". Sounds like dirty dancing combined with hot yoga! ... I can see the DYK for your WP bio page, now, when you hit the big time: Did you know that Betsythedevine has experience with sweaty-plus dancing but boxes of condoms were not part of her work supply? ;-) Great idea re soothing music and birdsong, too, I believe.

Roscelese, I'd probably enjoy opera more if my singing weren't such shite. Envy interferes with my enjoyment, I'm sure. I do alright in the shower, with the reverb to keep me on pitch, but otherwise I sound like a badly injured cat. One of the perquisites, though, of doing the show I described in that setting was that some days, when things would go well, I could finish my set up and work out the kinks as early as 10:00 AM, before anyone else arrived on site. I was out in the middle of a forest, essentially; not another soul for miles.

I'd test my cables and connections using a mic at the sound board, and I had these four extraordinarily high-quality speakers that were each roughly the size and weight of a small car - had to use a sack truck to move them - at the four corners of the amphitheare. One morning, on a whim, I set up two mics at my sound board, separated by a foot or two, ran the signal through my reverb, and started singing acapella with amplification that blew bark from the trees and must have cleared out every wildland creature in a 20-mile radius. Such fun! I'd just had my heart broken, as I thought, and mooned about for a week or two over it. Being able to sing Loch Lomond in my best Scots accent at such earth-rumbling, overwhelming volume, with reverb and stereo mics, in that gorgeous setting was so therapeutic that I was able to laugh at my tragic airs sooner rather than later, and get over myself pretty quickly. I cordially endorse the treatment for anyone who's been dumped and who's feeling low over it.

It sounds as if both of you, Betsy and Roscelese, enjoy the performing arts. May I recommend a little-known book to your attention? It's Act One, Moss Hart's memoir of his early days as a Jewish kid from Brooklyn trying to break into the theatre. It is, without any sort of doubt the most utterly charming and most howlingly funny book I have ever read. I've re-read it a few times over the years, actually, and there are just so many parts that have me laughing so hard I get tears in my eyes each time, and have to put the book down to recover. Last time I read it out loud, taking turns with my then-girlfriend, several years ago, and we both had that same reaction. An absolutely delightful book, and a beautiful, heartwarming story in the bargain.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohio, I just wanted to make one more direct appeal for you to remove the tag at Start-Up Nation. I think you've now been requested to do so by Betsey, Gato, Gabriel, Broccolo, Guy, and myself, and while I know your intentions are good, it's hard not to feel that you're setting up your own judgment over the that of all the rest of us put together. We've given you a fair shake to make your case, I think, and I believe two out of the six problems you listed have now been fixed. And I hope you feel I've dealt with you good-faith-y enough to know that I will continue to work to address your concerns. As a further show of it, I just added the author line I think you've been looking for (though I'm still not persuaded it's worth a whole section until we find more regular coverage of this aspect). Any chance you'd be willing to work with the consensus and take down the tag? Thanks for your continued work on this piece, which I'm sure must be as frustrating for you as it is for me. We are improving it, though, bit by bit. -- Khazar (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khazar. I believe you overstate the case somewhat: Both Betsy and Gatoclass made it clear on talk that they agreed with many of the concerns I raised, especially, as I gathered, the presence of twice as much praise as criticism when, to my reading, the reviews were pretty mixed. Sean had said something similar, as I recall. In fact, I recall that the creator of the article had herself included a line in the lead saying just that, a line which has now been expunged. Brocclolo's opinion I'm afraid I have to take at a considerable discount in this instance, though: For example, he's stated his opinon elsewhere that reviewers gave the book a roughly 90% approval rating, a "4.5" out of 5, as he put it, which seems hard to accept as being anything remotely like objective.

This is all moot at this point, though: I'd actually told Gatoclass three hours prior to your post above that although I felt the tag was merited, I wouldn't oppose its removal. I assumed he'd see that, and would remove the tag himself since that seemed to be the wish of most editors, anyway. I know Gato is a very early riser in what I assume is his time zone, and I expected he'd see my message a few hours after I posted it. That appears not to have happened, though; in retrospect I should have posted the disclosure to article talk, instead. Sorry for the oversight; I regret the unnecssary frustration that appears to have caused you.

I do want to express my very sincere thanks to you for your recognition of my good faith in this, even while we've been on opposite sides of many issues. I'm fully sensible of yours as well. More than that, I greatly honor your having gone so far as to include the author's AIPAC affiliation in the article. I argued for that as strongly as I did, of course, because there's no organization in America that does more to present all things Israel in the most shining and positive light they can. I'm sorry to see that the disclosure you so graciously introduced has now been expunged by a new editor to the article, though; by the same chap, in fact, who yesterday favored me with the characterizations "psychotic" and "hater" over this article, despite our never having interacted in any way.

Anyway, thank you for what I certainly recognize as your good will and good faith in our interactions. I'm sorry it has been so mutually frustrating an experience in some ways, of course, but it's been a rewarding one, too. One of the things I like most about participating here is the exposure it affords to viewpoints that I might otherwise be unlikely to encounter. But more particularly still, I cordially value the opportunity to collaborate productively with people of good will who hold those opposing opinions. One becomes calcified in one's views without such a stimulus, I believe. In any case, I look forward to continuing to work with you, very much indeed. Next time I have recourse to the old number 7, I'll raise the glass to you, my friend. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and the pleasure is mutual. See you at the article mines. Cheers, -- Khazar (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you have second, can you comment on this issue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_A._Falk#Lead_section I'm trying to determine if there is consensus for that lead or not. Thanks. BernieW650 (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohiostandard, I'm sorry to have taken so long to get back to you, but I've been busy with work and enjoying the spring outside. I'll take a look this weekend and see what I can turn up, but you should probably also seek help elsewhere. Feel free to nag me via email if needed. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Nuujinn; I'm glad you're enjoying the Spring. I, too, once heard rumors of a place that people call "outside", and am likewise determined to investigate at some point. ;-) I did go ahead and ask for assistance here, though, so no need to ask you to duplicate that effort, I think. Thank you, though, for your good will in wanting to help. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ohiostandard. You have new messages at Template talk:Did you know.
Message added 07:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, I assume you are concerned that I use a single purpose account to push an agenda. I just want to ensure you that I have only one account and I contribute mostly in the Romanian wikipedia. My interest in the BLP policy comes primarily from an article in the Romanian wikipedia where for more than six months I was unable to eliminate the irrelevant ethnotagging that is taking place there in a particular article. Actually, my intent was to contribute to biographies of important Romanian musicians but after the ethnotagging experienced early on I am simply afraid to create any new biography article. I must indicate that because of the ethnotagging that is taking place in the Romanian article, the respective personality received death threats and decided to renounce her Romanian heritage banning her music from the country and vowing to never return.

In my opinion, the current BLP is excellent in spirit. However, I see that its interpretation is occasionally leading to ethnotagging. I decided that I should attempt to propose an amendment to BLP after seeing the long debate on ethnicity and religion lately on the discussion page for the article Dominique Strauss Kahn (DSK). I believe that a clearer policy would have prevented ethnotagging DSK for so many years in his biography. His ethnotagging was irrelevant to his notability (or maybe marginally relevant). Gigi marga (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your explanation, which I accept entirely. I apologize for misunderstanding. One of the areas in which I'm active is plagued by socks. Some days it seems like half the accounts editing in the area are socks, and the latest technique is to do so with "throwaway" accounts that make just a limited number of edits and then stop, presumably when the sockmaster creates another new account. So when I see a "new" user account behaving in ways that new users don't typically behave in, like trying to influence policy, it sets off alarm bells for me. It might gather more support for your proposal if you were to disclose this same basic information on the BLP talk page in some way since I imagine other editors also would have similar misgivings. Or perhaps it would be better to create a user page, so your user ID no longer shows up as a "redlink", and to disclose this explanation on your main user page, with a brief comment on the BLP talk page to "point" to it.

If you'd like to remove my comment (and yours, which now follows it) feel free ... In fact, since you may be offline, I'm going to go ahead and remove my comment and your reply myself. If you object to that you should of course feel free to restore them. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up, OhioStandard. I suppose with hindsight I can see why you did what you did, and were it not for my previous interaction with Gigi marga I might have thought the same. Unfortunately, the blatent sockpuppetry we sometimes see on Wikipedia tends to make everyone a little over-suspicious, and we need occasional reminders that paranoia can be misplaced... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes; of course. Sorry for the uneasiness this must have caused you. As I said, I'm generally opposed to the broad-brush ethnotagging we've been seeing, as I know you are, as well. I'll need to consider it a bit more before I comment substantively on the proposal, though, if I do so at all. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the observation about my talk page and the need to clarify my position. I will complete my user page in Wikipedia in a few days. Since you mentioned about sucks, I have a question: how can I get support for investigating a suspected suck in another Wikipedia (not the English), when the suspect is also the highest ranking user (checkuser) in that Wikipedia? Gigi marga (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; again, my apologies for having misunderstood. Since your question is somewhat sensitive, I've sent you a reply via e-mail. Let me know via e-mail, or here, if you don't receive it. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing: You might like to ask for admin help (try the help desk, or just use the admin help template, which I explain below) to sort out KARom versus "Gigi marga" pages. I see, for example, that there's already a user page for KARom; it would probably (?) be best to create a User:Gigi_marga page as a redirect to that, depending on which user name you've settled on using. It's my understanding that here on en:Wikipedia we have a fairly standard account name-change process that usually takes care of this, and I'm not sure it's been followed properly re these two accounts. I'm certainly not saying you've done anything bad or improper, just that the process doesn't appear to have been completed correctly. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what you'd do to request admin help at your talk page. Just post the following, along with what you're asking for help with, at the bottom of your page:

== Question for administrator ==
{{adminhelp}}

--~~~~

That should get you help very quickly, although you'll have to refresh your talk page to see any new replies, of course. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you are not too busy if you could take a look at this page Hamas Covenant.I have done a bit of work on the lead but I belive that the article is just a rant against Hamas.It certainly does not provide a NPOV as wikipedia should do.It would need a lot of work to get it to a NPOV I feel.The subject is covered in the main Hamas page and I have edited that a bit to try and make that a bit more even.Can this Hamas covenant article be deleted or do editors have to edit it.It looks like just two editors are responsible for the work on the page.Thoughts? Owain the 1st (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Owain. I'll try to take a look later today. I haven't done so yet, but what you're telling me here makes it sound like it could be a POV fork. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did just look at it, and at its history, including your attempts. I can understand your having said that you don't know where to start. I have some concerns around socking issues at that article though, and I prefer not to discuss those in public. I'd be glad of your opinion on that, however, since I know very little about that how people do that or how to detect it. If you'd like to hear my thoughts, drop me an e-mail to my all-lowercase user name at gmail; feel free to use a generic or one-off e-mail account for the purpose if you'd rather not use your usual e-mail, to avoid disclosing any potentially identifying info. I never do that myself, disclose any personally-identifying information online, I mean. I will say here that I noticed, from the article's history, that you're not the first person to make the observations about POV in the article. An account named Ian Pitchford who hasn't been around much lately left an edit summary, "Entirely one sided" last July. Obviously the unnamed imam who the BBC source says authored this document was about as politically unsophisticated my girlfriend's cat. There are certainly prominent Rabbis who feel the same way toward Palestinian Muslims as that imam felt toward the Israeli Jews. But most of them (not all, see Meir Kahane) are politically astute enough to keep their racist opinions from reaching the broader public ear. I'd need to research this much more closely to determine the question, but I'm uncertain at present of the extent to which the document can legitimately be held up as being representative of Hamas. I might undertake that research, if I can possibly make the time for it: I like digging into sources that way. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reshaped the whole article to present a more neutral view.I was not too bothered about the article being there just that it was clearly just a POV piece.Probably needs some more work which I will get around to.How do you go about putting a protection on it?Like the 1R rule thing they have on other I/P issue articles?It is part of the I/P conflict I suppose and should be protected as such.Thoughts? Owain the 1st (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OS, your comment is wise, but I wonder why you address it to only one side? BTW I brought it here and away from AE because that thread is horrendously long as it is, and the comments are not directly relevant to SD. - BorisG (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point, Boris. It's my perception that, in that thread, the intention is primarily to tar and feather someone on the opposing side. But as I say, an excellent point, and I'm going to revise the post to reflect it. Thank you for posting here rather than there; that, too, seems wise to me, i.e. less likely to stir up drama. Please feel free to express your views here anytime. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! While I welcome your call to everyone to calm down, I also think we need a systemic change rather than reliance on good will. Unfortunately, this is not quite about a goat trespassing. This is about a real conflict which costs lives. Thus it is more than understandable that people (editors are humans) are passionate. And I don't blame them, as most of them (not all) are convinced that they are trying their best to make Wikipedia more neutral... and often violate policies in the process. Do I have a solution? No :(. - BorisG (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm acutely aware of the deadly nature of the conflict; it's one of the world's great sorrows, its longest-running shame and tragedy. I just don't think we need to import it here. I don't have a solution either, but you know what? Based on our previous very in-depth discussions on an unrelated article, I bet if it were up to just the two of us, that we could work it out. I'm only half joking; I know our opinions are generally quite opposed, but I've always had respect for the way you present yours, and for your willingness to actually listen as well as talk. We need more of that around here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you recognize, I'm sure, that the post could be construed to imply that SD is the goat, and that his trespass didn't amount to much, as I see it? Not enough to get out the torches and pitchforks for, anyway; not enough to reach for figurative weapons (like AE) over, in my view. YMMV in all good faith, of course. Don't tell SD I represented him metaphorically by a goat, though, please. ;-) Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree that we could come to consensus. But two people cannot cover the whole topic, can they? Thus there is a need to constructively engage people who are more partisan... Not sure how to do that. Enough for today. It is 2am here (after watching the final stage of the Giro live). Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a preliminary reply, know that I have limited wiki-time at the moment (something has come up at short notice IRL), and I might not be able to respond to your message on my talk page for a short time. But I have read, and am aware of, your points, and will respond fully as soon as I can. I was surprised by your suggestion that I am prejudiced in some way (you didn't really say how), especially because I am probably as impartial with regards to Israel/Palestine as one can be. I reside in Scotland, where there is a negligible Arab and Jewish population, and where Israel-Palestine is really not a contentious issue, and am from an Irish family. I've never edited the topic area on Wikipedia, or been involved in it IRL, or even had any significant involvement with the editors in question. It is a perpetual problem at AE that, because the board is staffed by a very small pool of administrators (it's a stressful and thankless task), eventually one sysop racks up several closes of enforcement requests for one topic area.

It is easy to look at the most recent closures of an administrator, and conclude that he must be biased towards those editors because the sum of the closures are against users of one faction. In reality, I closed each case 'in a vacuum'; I wasn't targeting one side, and I am disappointed that you seem to claim that I have. I will respond in full soon, but really I don't know what else to add. Regards, AGK [•] 21:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have been more general in my statements. I genuinely loathe having to raise such questions, but I'm afraid I haven't seen you object with anything like equal vigor to the very provocative actions of editors on the opposite side of the divide in Mideast politics.

Just to cite a couple of concise and easy-to-relate examples, in the AE about "Israel/Palesting articles generally" that you convened recently, you expressed no objection when an editor was shown to have referred to the members of the opposing side as "psychotic haters", and then had refused to apologize while at the same time claiming he did so, which he absolutely did not. And it likewise seems to me that you've been extraordinarily permissive (to put it as mildly as I can) with a recent highly-partisan and extremely controversial forum shopping editor on the side opposed to SD's usual editing pattern, and whom you appear to have taken under your wing. ( You do know that you were the fourth or fifth admin that editor has sought out and developed something of an ostensibly submissive and rather flattering on-wiki relationship with in the past two months, I hope? ) I did see where you lost patience with her at one point, although you're back on congenial terms, but she did feel confident-enough in your relationship that she felt free to continue her by no means new cutesy little habit of repeatedly referring to her perceived opponents as "trolls users" and speaking of their "lies false accusations" about her.

To be frank, I doubt any other admin who works trying to herd cats in the I/P area would stand for that for a second. Did you not notice that those strikethroughs were in her original posts, rather than having been made after the fact? And even if you didn't why would you think a strikethrough as opposed to a redaction/replacement would be acceptable? There are admins who would have blocked her for that, and almost all of them would have at least given her a stern warning to stop doing that. I'm afraid seeing your apparent lack of concern over these very intentional provocations rather dented my belief in your impartiality in the I/P area, along with other actions on your part that I won't take time to mention now.

These are fairly small concerns in the grand scheme of things, but they do seem to me to represent very unequal treatment relative to the pretty extreme harshness by which you've been dealing with pro-Palestinian editors recently. But I understand and fully respect that your time is limited right now, and I'm entirely willing to suspend the discussion of these and related examples until you're able to participate fully. Again, I'm very genuinely sorry to feel obliged to raise such concerns, and I'd be delighted to learn that my impressions are mistaken.

I do think it's normally the case, though, that the great majority of men and women of good will are understandably prejudiced, entirely without knowing they are, in favor of the Israeli side of the interminable Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Westerners simply don't get one-twentieth of the exposure to facts that are favorable to the Palestinian side of the conflict as they do to news that's favorable to Israel: The people of Gaza, for example, simply have nothing like Israel's ability to generate news: They own no international newspapers, there's no resident foreign press corps; reporter's access in and out of Gaza is severely restricted by the Israeli blockade, and reporters who do manage to get in, besides native reporters, are reportedly subject to special and harrassing attention by Israeli security forces in times of conflict. Even the equipment and materials needed to produce video records of what happens there can't cross Israeli checkpoints.

The other day, for example, I was surprised to read for the first time that the Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel that we've all heard such a storm of publicity about over the years had actually killed very few people. As I recall the details of the (?) 2008 story in the Guardian, just 14 people in total had been killed over the years by rocket attacks. The rockets, it seems, can't really be aimed. They're like Fourth-of-July bottle rockets, very primitive. The Israeli military is state of the art, however, and has killed hundreds (thousands?) in response to such attacks, most of them innocent civilians who were just trying to go about their day, including children, when their world exploded around them.

And when more intense and sustained conflicts or wars do flare up in conflicts between Israel and surrounding nations/peoples, there are almost always at least 10 or 20 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. Anyway, this is a discussion for another time, since you can't participate now. But I did feel I owed you some interim explanation for what I of course understand would be distressing comments on my part. If the discussion continues in your absence, I'll try to make it clear that everyone should try to suspend judgment, pending your response, since you can't participate now...

You know what? In the meantime, until you can further address your concerns on-wiki, I'm going to go ahead and send you the text of an e-mail that I sent to a friend recently when she asked, in all innocence and good will, "How can you support the Palestinians? They're terrorists!" It contains nothing about any editor, of course, but it will certainly give you occasion to see some things that you'll simply never be exposed to in the media I expect you normally have access to. If you're at all concerned that such a communication would be improper in any way, feel free to post its content to your talk, perhaps in collapsed format, to save space. I wouldn't object in the least.

Excuse the novel, here, but I did think you deserved a substantial reply to your concerns. Again, please understand that I haven't the least personal motivation or ill-feeling in saying any of the things I've felt it necessary to say, and that I take absolutely no pleasure in saying them. Best regards  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, but you have missed the mark entirely. My problem is not that I am biased in favour of Israel because of my own naivety about what's actually happening at Gaza etc. I'm not biased at all. I don't support any one faction, and I am completely uninvolved in this topic area. I have no opinion on the topic matter, I don't favour any of the involved editors over the others, and in fact I mostly don't even stop to consider what "faction" an editor is when an enforcement request is filed. I was probably being dense at the time, but I didn't even stop to think that both SD and Nableezy were pro-Israel editors, and that I would accordingly have sanctioned two in a fortnight. That is probably the evidence that best refutes the suggestion by you and Jd2718 that I am not impartial. I also hadn't realised previously, but it was pointed out to me that I recently also sanctioned User:Cptnono, a pro-Israel editor. So which side am I biased against? Is it now both pro-P and pro-I? Come off it. AGK [•] 12:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I understand your annoyance and frustration over this, and I'm sorry for that, but "Come off it" implies that I've made these comments frivolously or in bad faith, and I assure you that's not the case. I'm glad you blocked Cptnono for 24 hours saying that an opponent breeds cancer; that seems quite mild to me for such a comment, however, and as I observed above, you've ignored other name calling of a similar nature by Cptnono's usual traveling companions.

I'll reiterate that my major concern was the perception I gained from what I'm able to see that:

1. You knew Ed intended to close that request with no action taken,
2. Ed had asked for proposals re how to close and you made none,
3. You did not respond to Ed's proposal to close,
4. Ed politely asked you if you wished to comment further or make any proposal before he closed,
5. You made no such comment or proposal,
6. Instead you put up a message at the request page asking if Ed had any comments,
7. You took down that message two hours and 45 minutes later, and
8. You proceeded to issue a much more severe response than had been proposed by Ed.

Were you within the letter of the law to do this? Yes, you were. Did you game the process to effectively race to the finish line and impose a much harsher result than would have otherwise occurred? It would appear so, from the information I've been able to review. As I said, I'd be happy to be shown reason to believe that you didn't take advantage of Ed's collegial request for additional comments to race ahead of his intended close and impose your own much more severe outcome.

Can you tell me, for example,

• Why you didn't respond to Ed's proposal, or make any proposal of your own?
• Why instead of responding to his polite request for additional comments, you posted a message asking if he had any additional comments?
• Why you took that message down so quickly, and closed, apparently before he could reply?

Actually, that last point seem the crux to me. Will you please tell me specifically whether Ed had responded to your "back at you" request for additional comment, or whether you had any reason at all to believe that he was even aware of it, before you deleted it and proceeded to your preferred outcome?  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have answered yourself. I took down the message because I realised that Ed was asking for somebody else to make comment or take action. And there was no "race", because nobody seemed to want to conclusively close the thread: Enigma made a comment but didn't propose a method of proceeding; and Ed did not seem to want to want to take action. That is why I closed the thread. Is there anything else outstanding that you want me to answer? AGK [•] 13:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed didn't ask "for somebody else to make comment or take action". He asked for comments, and the closure certainly wasn't hanging fire as you suggest, either. It was proceeding in an orderly way to an outcome that you evidently disapproved of, but didn't bother to discuss or participate in shaping in any cooperative way. The discussion is here.

And yes, I know you're not required to do so, but I see no reason why you should have refused to do so, either, and instead imposed what appears to have been an outcome that other administrators would not have supported. I also just noticed that, like Ed, admin Gatoclass was also in favor of closing with no action, btw. Anyway, I'm afraid nothing you've said here has given me any reason to change my impression of your actions in this. I'm sorry to have to say that, but I think this should end the discussion of this matter unless SD decides to file an appeal.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is inappropriate for you to question my actions, and then decide that the matter is ended when I try to respond. In relation to your latest point, know that it is common on AE for a sysop to, from the offset of a request, either take on a primary role (in which they propose, or take, enforcement action) or a secondary role (in which they only 'steer' the discussion or comment on the proposals or actions of others). In this case, I took on a primary role; it was my understanding that Ed was taking on a secondary role, as he had not proposed any action. I will accept that I was wrong to think that if Ed states that he intended to action, but he has not at all did so. I wonder if we should just ask Ed himself, although it won't make much difference, because it will remain the case that I thought he was not going to action the request, and therefore that I was not "jumping the gun".

You obviously think that I did not agree with the request being closed with a lenient sanction, and that I raced in to be the one to sanction SD. The reality, which you do not seem to understand, is that nobody was going to action it. Ed wasn't, Enigma wasn't, and nobody else was. The request was languishing, probably because the discussion was getting so lengthy and only somebody (like me) who had been following it since the beginning could comprehend it. (We must also consider that I have rebutted your allegation that my recent actions demonstrate impartiality.) Either you genuinely think that Ed was going to close the request differently from a 6-month topic ban, and that I therefore am biased against SD, or you don't really think that Ed was, in which case you are pursuing this because you think I should have acted differently. I question your decision to impartially evaluate my actions, because, respectively, you are either incapable of accurately understanding the events here, or you are simply biased against me or in favour of SD (unlikely; you don't seem biased). Or I misunderstood Ed in the beginning, in which case, circumstance has led you to reasonably, but wrongly, reach your conclusion—but I don't think that's at all the case. I agree now that this discussion will soon yield diminishing returns, but I think it would be productive for you to respond, because this comment relates to a point that is critical but that we have not yet discussed. Of course, the decision is yours to take, because this is your talk page, but know that this administrator values his reputation as an impartial and fair adjudicator. Regards, AGK [•] 14:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( ← outdenting ) You're of course welcome to post any additional concerns. I'm sorry if I gave you any different impression; I was merely expressing my view on the likely productivity of continuing the discussion. Perhaps I was mistaken in that view, and I didn't mean to offend you by expressing it.

I can't reply at length to your several points now, but I will just say that you're correct to infer that it was my strong impression that Ed intended to close without action. I believe that was admin Gatoclass' recommendation, as well, who wrote,

I can't see much that is sanctionable here. SD has not edit warred, there are just two edits on two separate pages and I think they would probably come under WP:BRD. The Israel category is contentious but again, I don't see why BRD should not apply. Users are entitled to do some editing, and occasionally to make errors of judgement, without fear of sanction.

And the only reason the case was in any way hung up, as I understood it from this discussion, was that Ed had been waiting for you to reply to SD for over eight days.

It was further my impression that Ed would have closed the case without action since he wrote to you,

Would you like to make a proposal of what to do? I do not have any strong opinion myself, but I tend to support closing without sanctions if those presenting the arguments don't have a coherent case which is easy to follow. SD's behavior may be a bit unusual, but he would not be the first person to deserve that adjective to work on I/P articles.

And he'd previously written at the (now archived request page), after asking others for proposals and comments,

I have left messages for AGK and Enigmaman to see if they wish to comment further. Lacking a definite suggestion, this case may be closed with no action.

It does seem quite clear to me that Ed was intending to close with no action, and that he was asking for yours and others' opinions before he did so. Of course, we'll probably never know, since I doubt Ed would be willing to express his opinion at this point. Perhaps he'll tell you in private, although that could have its drawbacks, too, since you couldn't then in any way communicate what he'd told you. I'm sorry, but this is really all I have time to say about this, for now.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the acknowledgment. It is encouraging. Perhaps you may be interested in a read of my latest new article creation, It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear OhioStandard! I was hesitating for a while whether to write this or not but decided that I have to raise my concern. Think what you are doing. Do you think it is appropriate to question an adnministrator's integrity and accuse him of bias because you diagree with his decision or perhaps a couple of recent decisions? I think not. Even for an uninvolved editor. And I think it is highly inappropriate for an involved editor clearly sympathetic to one side of a dispute. These things are always in the eye of the beholder, so to speak, and I think it is very poor form on your part.

As for the substance of the latest admin action... I have no comment. I have not expressed an opinion one way or the other, because I consider myself involved. I even refused to give my oponion when asked by an administrator. And I won't express my opinion here. I think involved editors should refrain from comments on those matters (except perhaps in defence of the accused - I make that exception for humility's sake), let alone quetsion administrator's integrity. But I am repeating myself. Of course these are not policies or anything. Just some basic civility. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, Boris, you're always welcome to express your opinions here. I'm sorry to learn that you consider my actions poor form, but you're very much mistaken if you think I haven't thought about this very carefully. As I told AGK, I really dislike having to raise questions of the sort I've felt obliged to ask in this matter. And I respect your concern for AGK in this; I feel that too, although I could excuse someone for taking leave to doubt that.

But I have to take exception to your assumption "because you disagree with his decision". This is not some kind of strategic ploy because I don't like his decision. I don't like it, of course, but what I really, really don't like is how he made it. I should be discussing this with him, rather than with you, though, so if you'll forgive me, I'll thank you for your opinion, and close for now. It'll take me some time to consider and compose a reply to AGK, though, with the care the matter deserves, so you (and he) won't see that here for some while, yet. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...so be careful you don't start displaying symptoms of going overboard in this unfortunate Betsy/Mbz/Ohana fiasco. I've seen your contributions to ANI and elsewhere in the past and been extremely impressed by what a clearly level-headed, thoughtful, perceptive individual you are -- and those are hardly adjectives one would use to describe the vast majority of ANI contributions. Usually, adjectives like spiteful, vituperative, defensive, and angry apply. Regardless, I just posted a response to your request for the input of an uninvolved editor (and I'm in agreement with you on all counts, more or less). That said, I think you've plainly made your point of view known at this point and that you might consider stepping back and seeing what others have to say. The multiple threads regarding this issue are beginning to look like a personal crusade conducted by OhioStandard. Granted, I agree with the motivations behind this crusade. I just don't want to see someone who's typically so decent and level-headed do any injury to their well-deserved reputation. Note: this isn't intended as criticism, just a third party point of view from an editor you've likely never heard of :). Take it or leave it at your pleasure! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]