Unlike other Wikipedians I don't archive Talk pages since old contents are automatically archived anyway - if you want to access previous comments use the "Older versions" function. But I keep a log of the removals:

• Removed all comments prior to Jan 2003. --Eloquence 04:42 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments prior to Feb 2003. --Eloquence 10:19 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

Except for this one regarding PETA:

[1] wrote in The The Physiologist that PETA used a "cleverly edited" video and so "grossly distorted" the truth. There are several claims of dishonesty in the article.

Don't know how to integrate it, though. Maybe you can find a way. Arthur 22:22 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

I see you have integrated it. Still need to read the article, will try to write a proper summary. --Eloquence 10:19 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

I wish to apoligize for my lack of eloquence. As I would like to add some information on Salim I al Sabah, Kabbar, Abdul Aziz ibn Abdul Rahman ibn Saud, Najd, Faisal I, Political Titles of the Ottoman Empire, Warba, Abdulla II al Sabah, the First Kuwaiti Crisis, Abdullah ibn Hussein, Mashian, Failakah, Auhah, al Khalifa, al Jalahima, al Sabah, Abdul Karim Qasim, Jaber III al Ahmad al Sabah, Muhammad I al Sabah, the Second Kuwaiti Crisis, Zaki Arsuzi, Salah al Din Bitar, Ghazi ibn Faisal, Bakr Sidqi, Abdullah II al Sabah, Ahmad al Sabah, Abdul Ilah, and Percy Cox, as well as (obviously) the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of October 1922, the Turkish Petroleum Company, the Basra-Baghdad Highway, the Berlin-Baghdad Railroad, and the Abudllah Khor Waterway, Nuri al Said, Abdulla III al Sabah, Aramco, the Kuwait Oil Company, and the Anglo-Kuwaiti Treaty of 1899; I would like to inquire as to what objections you might have to my doing so? Vera Cruz

If you wish to contribute to this project again, here's what you should do.

1. Post to the wikien mailing list under your real name. Apologize for past behavior that may have caused offense, and promise to treat other Wikipedians with respect in the future. Explain why you chose to subvert the ban, and apologize for doing so.
2. Send a private mail to Jimbo to the same effect.
3. Start adopting different editing practices. For the most part, try working on your text in a text editor before publishing it to reduce the problem of a very high number of minor edits (every minor edit requires us to store a complete copy of an article in the database, it makes revision comparing harder, and clutters recent changes for those who cannot use the enhanced version).
4. Explain your edits better. If you want to change the wording in a text significantly, at least provide a rationale on the article's talk page.
5. Read NPOV again. Do not use it as a "killer phrase" but only change sentences where doing so is necessary to reflect a controversy.

It is obvious that you are addicted to Wikipedia, and I cannot fault you for that. However, your repeated attempts to subvert community decisions will meet with failure. Either work with us, or stay away. Being honest is the first requirement for cooperation. Many people would like to work with you, but your past behavior has made that impossible until you follow at least the first two recommendations above. --Eloquence 00:14 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Ok Dude, I'll try to be less NPOV as I see you're a big time "J". I'm a "P" so we have a classic case of a P-J conflict. I'm causing chaos which drives you nuts because you prefer order. I'll do my best to try and colour within the lines.

Mr. Herman

In the spirit of order, NPOV means "neutral point of view", and it is not something you are expected to "be" (and certainly not less), but a rule you are expected to conform to when writing for Wikipedia. You can hold whatever views you like, as long as you present them in the spirit of this policy, that's fine. Personally, I think Meyer-Briggs is too simplistic to be useful. For example, I can be both very intro- and very extroverted. This oversimplicity makes MB eligible to be turned into a pop religion. It's no coincidence that modern cults like Scientology are riding on the personality test wave. --Eloquence 19:08 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

hmm, well maybe it is a pop religion but it works for me. I now realize that most arguments come down to some sort of personality conflict. e.g. either you prefer order (J) or you prefer chaos (P). You can't change what somebody prefers - all you can do is deal with it. Oh ya and I meant to put 'more' instead of less. P.S. in case you're wondering - you're an INTJ (same as Linus) here's your description: http://www.geocities.com/player2000gi/intj.htm

How do you know I'm "introverted", how do you know I'm "intuitive"? You seem pretty judgmental yourself. And do you really like chaos? Did you enjoy this day? --Eloquence 21:11 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I tend to come across a little blunt sometimes and get carried away. I'll drop the MBTI rant, I just thought that you might be an INTJ. L8R 4llig8or

Kay, Tarquin is one of the good guys. Please take a step back and relax. He did not mean to hurt or libel you. --Eloquence 22:45 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

He hasn't been a "good guy" to me or within my sight, but it you say that's your opinion, I accept that it is. I agree with you that he didn't mean to hurt or libel me, but he did mean to stir up trouble on the 'pedia, and he did libel me, and he made me the subject and object of messages intended to be hurtful, and I think taking him down is the best way for me to get him and the other jackals off my back. It doesn't do any good for you to say he didn't mean any harm, when he took the opposite position when I gave him the opportunity to say that himself. So I sincerely appreciate your effort to tone down this situation, but it's too late. And I think it will be good to establish that the Internet in general and the Wikipedia in particular are not outside the law, that conduct society does not permit elsewhere it does not allow here, either. What I find puzzling, however, is why people who keep making a big deal about the possibility of people's suing for copyright infringement here don't see that defamation is just as valid a cause of action. -- isis 06:14 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Kay,

first, yes, there has been unnecessary zeal with regard to copyright. That's why I wrote Avoid Copyright Paranoia more than a year ago. I think "intellectual property" is a bad idea to begin with, but Wikipedia needs to remove copyright infringements when notified of them. I believe the fat warnings (e.g. on the edit screen) promote an atmosphere of fear where many people think they need to actively go out and remove everything that possibly could be a CI. I maintain the Pompeii gallery pages here, and even there someone asked me if the pictures were copyrighted ..

If you agree that Tarquin did not intend to hurt or libel you, wouldn't it be fair to let the thing rest? A legal threat against him is, at least for him, a whole different level than the bickering on web sites. I take it you want to remedy injustice -- but if you want to make an example of man who meant you no harm, primarily, as it seems, to set a precedent, you are at risk of committing an act of injustice yourself -- through the justice system. Please look at your rhetoric: "I think taking him down is the best way for me to get him and the other jackals off my back." Is that really you speaking?

Yes, Wikipedia is not outside the law. But the law isn't everything. There are also standards of fairness, morality, decency which we can follow. Maybe Tarquin hasn't followed these standards, but you should. Besides, it would not be a very useful precedent -- the last thing we need is yet more regulation on Internet message boards. I'm not against libel law per se (European libel laws are very extreme, though, see e.g. http://www.mcspotlight.org ), but I do think that 1) intent should be crucial, 2) anonymous users cannot "libel" others. If these two criteria are followed, action can be taken in serious cases, while we don't bog down the legal system or the networks with digital neighbourhood fights. --Eloquence 09:06 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

Every message I have received from you has made me think more highly of you, and this one especially. I really do appreciate your efforts to sort this thing out, but you can't unscramble these eggs. Your points are well taken, and I don't disagree with them (altho I don't hold the same opinions as you expressed), but they don't lead to the conclusion you want me to draw. For example, you say it would be "'fair' to let the thing rest"; but it's also "fair" (and "just", too) for me to sue him for doing me legal injury. You ask if that's really me speaking; I assume that's an attempt to flatter me into taking some other attitude you think is somehow better and assume I do, too, but you have misjudged me if you think that's not (a cleaned-up version of) my attitude. Tarquin dragged me into this to-do about the effect of the copyright laws on using photos in the 'pedia, and it can never be resolved by consensus. But it can be resolved by having a federal court rule on what the law is, and then we can all get back to working on the project, and Tarquin has made it possible for me to have the court do that. Why don't you see that as a good thing, as I do? -- isis 09:53 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

Let me try to do some more egg-unscrambling. If Tarquin does not appear in a Delaware court, what will the effect be for him? Will/can you sue for damages? In any case, I think the potential negative effects on him and his family do not justify the course of action. Getting a declaratory judgment in a federal court on the copyright question may be a good thing, but I'm not willing to take a "the end justifies the means" stance -- if doing so requires bringing suit against Tarquin, I would really ask you to reconsider. As you know, Tarquin did not mean to injure you (neither in a legal nor personal sense), and I'm sure that he will apologize for what I believe to be simply a misunderstanding, if you clarify your position again. Please give him a second chance, and we can all sleep better. --Eloquence 10:16 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

You may not know it (and he seems not to, either), but by law the only opinion I am allowed to express about what might happen to Tarquin if I sue him here is that he should consult a lawyer for advice on that subject -- I cannot discuss the litigation with him. (I am, however, allowed to discuss the matter with a lawyer representing or advising him, and that need not be one admitted to the bar here.) If I weren't the one on the receiving end of his misconduct, I wouldn't be nearly as keen to sue him, either, so I really do see your POV but trust you see mine, too -- it isn't just him anymore, it's the hyenas he set on me and now wants to walk away and leave me with -- no, thanks. And I do NOT "know" that he did not intend to injure me: I believe he did not mean to libel me (because he didn't know enough about the subject to form that specific intent), but I think he did intend to lower my standing in the eyes of the rest of the Wikipedia community in order to raise his own, and that's what he did, and that's libel, pure and simple. How do you propose to unscramble those eggs? And I do NOT want (that is, would not accept) an apology from him. I demanded a retraction, which is an admission that what he said was not true; if he doesn't retract it, what would an apology mean, and if he retracts it (thus admitting you can't believe what he says), what would an apology mean? But given his response to that demand, that issue is past unscrambling, too. Then I asked Jimbo to mediate a settlement, but what I got from Tarquin (and his hyenas) was more abuse -- I'd like to believe you that he's worried enough that you could get him to say whatever it would take for me to back off, but that's not good enough. You haven't even said he says he's done giving me a bad time, and I think if you had that card, you'd have played it. BTW, if you run out of reading material, you might find Rule 54(d)(1) and Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure interesting. -- isis 11:20 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

I doubt whether Tarquin is in the least bit troubled by your threat to sue him. A threat which you most certainly don't have any grounds for or any chance of realistically pursuing (Maybe on Judge Judy or something). I certainly wouldn't be scared, and so I say without fear that I think you're barmy for pursuing this. Eloquence is quite right you are making yourself look idiotic and possibly unbalanced. Mintguy

I am pretty sure he won't be worried. Even large US companies think twice about bringing libel cases in the UK since the McLibel travesty, and a court in another country won't have any jurisdiction or means of enforcement. I agree with Mintguy and Eloquence, this is neither a rational or a balanced course of action. -- Chris Q 17:21 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

When primitive duels to the death were still wide-spread, at least apologies were commonly accepted. You do not seem to be ready to accept it even for what was a minor understanding. Tarquin did not unleash any "hyenas" -- or do you seriously believe that these public replies would have been made had you contacted Tarquin privately? These were simply reactions to a public conflict. Tarquin did not intend to lower your "standing in the eyes of the Wikipedia community" either -- you're doing a pretty good job at that yourself. If you need to sue someone who has done nothing wrong to be happy, I will not and cannot stop you, but do not expect any help or support from me in the future. I will also insist that your sysop status be withdrawn, as I do not trust you to judge the contributions of other Wikipedians fairly any longer. Elo out. --Eloquence 11:31 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

Isis - Are you going to pay for Tarquin's flight from the UK to the US? --Mintguy

So let me get this right, if anybody disagrees with Isis' legal opinion then they will be sued for daring to assert that she could be incorrect? I'm just curious if this is over what it seems to be over. Vera Cruz

_____

The jurisdiction I live in, Canada, there are criminal sanctions against libel where truth is no defence. This ordinarily serves to act as libel chill; however, sometimes it emboldens the righteous: The burden of proof for the crown is almost impossible to reach. At the civil trial the defendants pay into court an insulting amount as the value of damage. At examination,defendants' lawyers make known the strategy to fight on the grounds that the plaintive has no reputation to damage. Left with the prospect of having their life examined, anyone with something worth hiding, will drop the suit rather than accept $27. $27 bucks would become a price tag. It would mean that anyone could make the libel for $27. It is never accepted. Judges hate this defence because it is so ugly; however, it is a given that every respondant gets to present their best defence. Plaintif chooses the jurisdiction - RESPONDANT CHOOSES THE GROUND. Isis - why won't you listen to reason ?

Thanks re image sizes etc. Nevilley 00:02 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

John B. Bogart, editor of the New York Sun, said in 1877:

" When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog it's news."

Vitually every case of prosecuted animal abuse in which a man bites a dog, makes the newspapers in North America. Several examples are picked up by wire services each year. The particular example in Junk Food News was provided by Carl Jensen, founder of Project Censored. This mention of "Man bites dog" might need to be contextualized and integrated to the article or alternatively deleted as nonsense. Two16

I liked the "hailed...as turning point" vs. "publicity stunt" thing. Apt turn of phrase, o eloquent one! --Uncle Ed

Thanks, Ed. You also do a good job at NPOV if you're in the right mood. Sometimes you scare me, though. And isn't it creepy in a Dr.Jekyll/Mr.Hyde-like way that you use "Uncle" only when you act like the good guy? Come on, Ed, what's your dark secret? ;-) --Eloquence 20:09 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize people were reading anything into those shifts. I'll just stick to Uncle Ed from now on.

Zu Rumsfeld: Kann man dann nicht das eindeutig in diese Richtung weisende Presseecho in den Artikel aufnehmen? Some intellectuals klingt in Bezug darauf und in Bezug auf die in München erwarteten Demonstrationen ziemlich tiefstaplerisch.

Es ist ein klarer Unterschied zu machen zwischen öffentlicher und veröffentlichter Meinung. In diesem Fall erwarte ich zwar, dass die öffentliche Meinung stärker anti-amerikanisch ist als die veröffentlichte. Es genügt jedoch nicht, als Beleg dafür die veröffentlichte Meinung (Presseecho) zu zitieren; vielmehr ist es erforderlich, halbwegs repräsentative Umfragen zu finden, die eine solche These stützen würden. Erwartete Demonstrationen sind erst einmal genau das: erwartete Demonstrationen. Du kannst ja etwas schreiben wie: "Several groups have announced demonstrations against .." Dafür müsstest Du aber belegen können, dass für diese Demos Rumsfelds Bemerkungen ausschlaggebend waren, was ich bezweifle.

Tiefstapeln ist besser als hochstapeln :-) -Eloquence 15:40 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on Ferdinand Hitzig! Monatsschrift -- auf das wäre ich nie gekommen. --KF 17:07 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Gern geschehen! OCR-Fehler sind manchmal ziemlich tricky; ich frage mich, wie viele noch in den importierten Britannica-Artikeln vergraben sind .. --Eloquence 17:15 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Another note on Mav's Talk page re image sizes and Meteora is addressed to you too - if you had a moment to look - please? ... Thanks, Nevilley 20:22 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks v much for all your help with this. It looks great now. I take your point about authors and the system, but for the time being, at least I can see how it is done. Thanks again, :) Nevilley

RK, you are still using the term vandalism in NPOV disputes. This is not acceptable. Please stop it. --Eloquence 15:21 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence, you are wrong. This was not a NPOV dispute. This was a question of fraud. Someone cannot write deliberate lies, and pass them off as facts. That, by definition, is vandalism. In this case, someone was unahppy with the historical facts: Many Palestinian leaders have publicly stated that the peace process with Israel is only a temporary measure, and that their final goal is the elimination of Israel. Well, being unhappy with this mainstream Palestinian position does not give anyone the reason to lie about it, and state the precise opposite. That is fraud and deceit, and vandalism is the only word to describe it. How would Wikipedias feel if I rewrote the entries on George W. Bush, and falsely claimed that he has always been against having a war in Iraq? People would scream bloodly murder, and rightly point that change out as vandalism. This isn't about NPOV. It is about substituting fantasy for history. RK

Opps! I try to only greet user's whose edits I have reviewed first - I have no idea how that talk page slipped through... --mav