My RFA
		Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:37, 11/4/2007

just sayin... Tvoz |talk 23:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[1]] Jmegill (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on MessageLabs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AnubisGodfather^T_© 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with MessageLabs. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. AnubisGodfather^T_© 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions says: Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add {{hangon}} to the page, and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page.

So please stop it. AnubisGodfather^T_© 22:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this addresses your concerns. Although I mentored Mercury, I rarely close site discussions and he's always been very bold and independent about that. If I had any voice in this closure I would rather have seen the article kept by someone who had no association with me, just to avoid more drama. But Mercury didn't consult with me. I didn't know until after it happened so I posted as soon as I found out to discourage surmises. Then I pledged to Doc Glasgow to stay out of the DRV. If you have any other doubts I'll be happy to address them here. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 03:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disliked that version for the reasons I outlined (all of which were not addressed). Badagnani (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sometimes the folks who have this watchlisted don't notice it for a few days, I've had to crosspost before, sometimes twice. Well written message by the way. :) Regards, Mercury 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mercury. And seriously, no hard feelings on my side over the brouhaha that's been rolling and ongoing. I got pulled in from something someone posted on Jehochman's talk page, we'd worked on a variety of things here and there before he got sysop. You honestly I think did the best you could at the time given all the weird circumstances. I'm sorry if I came across as heated towards you a couple of times. I honestly did not mean to. Lawrence Cohen 18:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Editing can sometimes get heated, some folks are even calling for my recall. But I think once some times passes, cooler heads will prevail. Its really a good project overall. Regards, Mercury 18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted on the recall page. Whats your condition? Stand down if endorsed, or go for a reconfirmation RFA? You should do the RFA if it gets endorsed. Lawrence Cohen 19:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure yet to be honest. Mercury 19:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The RFA will at least be sure to get a lot of eyes on things, and I'd Support if so. Or Object, I suppose is accurate, to keep you. Lawrence Cohen 19:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For BLP biographies, see the "dead trees standard" as articulated in my posts. It's my proposed interpretation, not actual guideline or policy, but I'm not aware of any definitive counterproposal. Use common sense hasn't worked very well because this is the kind of subject where reasonable people disagree. Durova^Charge! 20:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a dead trees standard is workable, though. The problem is we have infinite trees here, and to apply that standard would eliminate hundreds if not thousands of perfectly valid and legitimate articles. It's a good idea, and is appealing in it's wording, but it implies something that I don't think would ever get support. I don't know that I could support it as a standard, at any rate, unfortunately.

1. Would every sitting current member of the United States Congress rate an article by that standard?
2. Would every previous member of the United States Congress rate an article?
3. Would every sitting current member of the United States Senate rate an article by that standard?
4. Would every previous member of the United States Senate rate an article?
5. Would every member, past and present, of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff rate an article?
6. Would every musician that has had a #1 charted hit rate an article?
7. Would every notable actor rate an article?

That's just off the top of my head, and I can see a significant number of articles just there being deleted. The tricky problem is that threshold, isn't it? Dead trees is just incredibly, incredibly high. Lawrence Cohen 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that this standard includes specialty encyclopedias and applies only to opt-out requests. So, in all likelihood, just about all of the people you list would stay whether they liked their Wikipedia biographies or not. There are encyclopedias of politics, encyclopedias of music, etc. As I stated at the Angela Beesley nomination, I'm thinking not so much of Sting as a bass player who recorded a few songs with Sting in an otherwise uneventful career. That bassist's identity would be verifiable through the recording credits and that person would probably satisfy WP:MUSIC, but if he decided he'd rather not be here it wouldn't be hard to merge the relevant information elsewhere and redirect or delete the page. Durova^Charge! 21:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Durova's approach makes sense as a factor to consider, but I am not sure I like it as a bright line test. Following that guideline, for example, might suggest that we cannot write on Abu Zubaydah. Following dead tree standards puts wikipedia BEHIND other encyclopedias when, part of the strength here is being able to lead and be out front and current. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if we stand in agreement on a solution to the problems set forward by the Durova case and WP:PRIVATE, but I value your efforts to bring clarity to the whole thing. And I thought Raul's comments about using copyright as a basis is dead on right -- as are his concerns in both directions regarding the publication of private communications. His views are insightful and your efforts are appreciated. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For your work in helping to promote discussion and consensus related to the waterboarding article in a construction manner, I award you this Barnstar of peace. Thanks for all of your hard work. Remember (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Lawrence Cohen 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For exemplary work towards achieving consensus on issues related to Waterboarding. Hats off for not taking the easy road. GregorB (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about three times. It just seemed like pushing and prodding would do the trick eventually. :) Lawrence Cohen 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, if you need anything let me know. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts to help clean up the Image namespace. It certainly needs it. However, please try to be careful when tagging images with Twinkle. You recently tagged a handful of images under WP:CSD I6, but none of those images had been tagged as {{nrd}} (for no rationale) for the requisite amount of time. Instead those images should be tagged with the NRD template, and the uploader warned. Someone else will come through and clear the backlog. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll fix that. Lawrence Cohen 14:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Blackwater as a mercenary outfit in the infobox is extremely POV. They are not considered mecenary under Geneva or by the UN. They are a private contractor that is on U.S. Government contract. They supply the men, the U.S. pays the bill. Utilizing your standards, I am a mercenary since I signed a contract and am payed by the U.S. to conduct warfare or provide security. The job of Blackwater is to provide State Department Security, and as all of us who have been in these hostile nations understand, it means taking and giving fire from time to time. However, that tid bit of a fact does not make you a mercenary. Did they hire Chileans, if so, that still does not make them mercenary. Less than 10% are foreign personnel and my understanding is those guys are in strictly support roles not direct security roles. The fact you have foreign nationals does not make you a mercenary group. If that is the case, then once again the U.S. Army is a huge fucking mercenary group since we have a number of enlisted soldiers in our ranks that are not U.S. citizens. I.E. on contract with the government and payed by the government, no different than a Blackwater op. Also, if this is the case with Blackwater, then you guys need to get your happy asses over to the every other private contractor site that conducts business with the U.S. Government and start labelling them accordingly. It can't be one without the other. For a better definition of mercenary, please look up the French Foreign Legion. That is a mercenary. Paid by a government other than your own to conduct warfare for that said government.

Do I have a problem with you placing the fact that they have been called mercenaries by sources on the page? No, as long as you give the other side of the debate and keep it extremly NPOV. However, placing it in the infobox basically is extremely POV in that it basically writes off Blackwater as mercenary and nothing else. It closes the debate and anyone who does not read the article to understand where the debate lies looks at that infobox and immediatley their understanding of Blackwater is that they are mercenary, when in fact they are not and if they are it is highly debatable. This is an excellent reason that Wikipedia is not relied on as a viable source of information when writing papers and conducting research. Wikipedia is not to be utilized to push a point of view politically, religiously, etc. It should be utilized to report what something is from both points of view and give equal time to those views. However, those views should be held in the body of the article, not in the infobox.MustangSixZero 15:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your thoughtful (if blunt) response. If memory serves that was initially placed by someone else. I will start a discussion later today on the talk page, over whether a corporate infobox should reflect the company's assertation of what their role, market, and nature is, or the sum total of that place external verifiable sources. I'm certainly not going to edit war over anything right now. Lawrence Cohen 15:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks very much for your support on my recent RfA, which was successful. I appreciate your comments and participation, and intend to use the tools carefully and for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Thanks again! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a guy who gets barnstars for NPOV solutions, you sure made an about face by adding a whole lot of non-reliable, POV pushing sources to the List of massacres‎ article. No doubt you thought you were correcting an injustice. However, the end result is that this article now has several rather non-neutral sources supporting a contested event, and you are the editor of record for these additions. Rklawton (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no stake or interest in that article; I simply saw it from the ANI thread, and wouldn't revert there anyway. I undid a revision that you did, which you were not entitled to do. You had completely inappropriately blocked Sarah777 with your admin tools to get an immediate advantage in a content conflict, as was noted on the ANI thread by many people. Your last edit had no entitlement to stand from how I read the situation, so I put it back to the status quo and left it. As I wrote in the summary talk it out. Being an admin gives you no free passes to control content and your editorial voice has the same weight as mine or Sarah's or Alison's. Sorry for the trouble. Lawrence Cohen 15:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I'm not entirely sure why I created the page back in July, but it wasn't because I had a personal interest in it; the edit summary says something about disambiguation and I expect it had something to do with the remainder of a disambiguation after one page was deleted. Feel free to speedy it if you're so inclined, I have no interest in the page and will go to the AfD and say so. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I think I found it just hitting Random article yesterday morning. It may end up closed early for the AfD, but who knows. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 15:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer your former version to the current version. I do not think it is perfect but I think it is MUCH better than what we have now.--Blue Tie (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing and positions are weird. Apparently, thinking that your version is good, is an extreme minority viewpoint. I do not grasp that and I have never seen an editor work against themselves that way! Very unusual! I must admit, I do not understand you at all. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I supported mostly the modified version I had put up right after protection, here. That version had wide support, was completely backed up by a consensus of sources and notable opinions and viewpoints that were all policy-compliant, and was politically neutral. The fact that people seem to be actively discrediting and devaluing sources based on personal political ideologies is offensive to me. It's like laughing in the face of NPOV, by trying to cite NPOV as a bludgeon against itself! Lawrence Cohen 16:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, oddly, you are siding aggressively with the people who are doing the very thing you find offensive. Totally odd. You may be of the opinion that I have discredited or devalued sources inappropriately. I have not done that. If you think so, find one instance. On the other hand that is exactly what has happened to all the sources I listed. I have a feeling you are very biased on this matter. My only bias is on the side of wikipedia. I almost never give my personal views but I find myself now in a position where I must. So here goes: I consider waterboarding to be torture and illegal. But I do not believe that my view is universal. I believe it is disputed. And when things are disputed wikipedia must not take sides. So, my ONLY agenda is to be in harmony with wikipedia standards. I have no political, religious or other agenda. I am trying to be consistent and unbiased. As far as I can tell you are also consistent but biased. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bias is simply I want consensus to stand, and I'm concerned that views which are remotely related to the US Government or domestic to the US government are being given a more prominent voice and weight than other sources, or foreign sources (see Randy's various comments, on reliable sources noticeboard and waterboarding talk archives for examples). In any event, I have quite a few family members coming from out of town to join us in our house in the next 90 minutes, so will have little time for anything for a few days. I think I'll take a break from the article for a few days afterwards as well, at least. My time on here is getting totally consumed by defending NPOV and stopping undue weight and fringe views from creeping in on there, but others can deal with it for a little while. I need to actually write some content, not just hold off political nonsense. You've been arguing from a policy standpoint generally, rather than political ideologies and personal opinions, at least, and I thank you for that. Merry Christmas. Lawrence Cohen 17:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your desire to let consensus stand, contrary to wikipedia policy is itself contrary to wikipedia policy. See WP:CON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wrong, unfortunately. If people can't get it focused on that talk page, without useless trolling like "the United Nations sucks" I'll have to begin steps for some sort of mediation, enforced or otherwise, to settled it. Lawrence Cohen 01:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please note that the user's username is "Shibumi," not "Shibuni." Badagnani (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I seem to horrible with name spelling lately. The behavior there makes zero sense to me--the page has turned from civil productive discussion to partisan bickering and edit warring. The 'not torture' individuals seem to be going against policies on sourcing; you'd think they'd want to not have this exposed to more eyes. The further up the food chain it goes the more people will see the talk page, and the more will come in to support policies. Why escalate things like this? No sense. Lawrence Cohen 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun--I'm not sure I'm up to the task of repairing the archives, as it's become quite complex. Wouldn't it have just been easier to allow the bot to archive the talk page (as the talk page states, at the top)? Badagnani (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it all now, and set the bot to 14 days for the time being. The sources section will roll off unless updated soon, FYI. This page has become such a time sink... Lawrence Cohen 20:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "filibuster" is quite accurate, yes. But no WP article, on any subject, should be allowed to become a tool of ideology or fringe opinion. Badagnani (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have deleted two things accidentally, in this edit. Badagnani (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind fixing it? Literally out the door to the airport now. Happy holidays! Lawrence Cohen 01:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I noticed that you requested a photo on the WP North Carolina talk page. I just wanted to direct you to Wikipedia:Requested_pictures If you have not already gone there yet! Cheers Rob110178 (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I looked over the Blackwater article and submitted my comments to the peer review page. Let me know if you are trying to get this up to GA or FA status and I might lend a hand. Remember (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem new to the controversy, so I will fill you in on the background as neutrally as I can (for the record, I support him). TTN does post merge notices on articles, tags them as needing improvement, and that kind of advance notice. He doesn't tend to follow up quickly. He comes back a few months later, and, if no action has been taken to correct the problem, he redirects the article. He tends to do this to hundreds of articles per day, and has been at it for quite some time. His supporters (like me), point out that he is objectively over 99% accurate in his selection of problem articles, and no one can come up with policy-based objections to any individual redirect. Detractors tend to focus on his brief, non-interactive style of doing it, and the sheer volume of his redirection activities. Supporters point at that same volume as an indicator of the massive amount of this stuff that is in Wikipedia, and that no heavy discussion based approach would allow him to achieve the necessary speed and efficiency.Kww (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lawrence - I reinstated the section on Edwards' talk because I wanted to reply to it. Maybe I missed something, but in my view there really is nothing in there that hasn't been discussed on Talk before, so to remove it I think may add fuel to the fire. But that's just my opinion, and as I said, maybe I missed something in his comments that are a problem. Tvoz |talk 08:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - seems Anastrophe reinstated it while I was editing and I didn't even realize that. There may be a BLP point, but I think A. is right that if so the whole page should likely go into the archives - I'm not really sure either. Tvoz |talk 08:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more vocally, and frequently, you have to defend your point, stance, or position, the more likely it is your point, stance, or position is either without value for Wikipedia or is not supported by policy. If your point, stance, or position had legs, why would you have to defend it feverishly? Lawrence Cohen 15:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked, dismayed and offended at this edit. You may not agree with me, but that does not entitle you to attack me -- Though I do not understand you or agree with you sometimes, up to this point I have had nothing but respect for you and I think I have treated you kindly. I am amazed that you would with obvious forethought, blast through WP:AGF and go right into violation of WP:NPA. I am hoping it was a momentary lapse.--Blue Tie (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. You won't see me on that article for the time being. Lawrence Cohen 05:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that:

That's a big Twinkie. But still, if it were listed as a project for everyone to get behind, I bet with all the editors here it could get knocked down 1000~ a day, easy. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

on the admin noticeboard made me laugh. A quote that I don't see very often. Good movie too.--Rockfang (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Dr Tobias Funke (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to wait for threads to archive. You can click the "permanent link" menu item in the left column of any page. The copy the section link from the TOC. This will generate a permanent link to the current version of the page. Such links are useful for ArbCom evidence. See Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide. Jehochman ^Talk 05:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I'll fix it. Lawrence Cohen 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not limited to biographies. See this Google search for an example of this taking place on a non-bio article. Perhaps this is done on an article-by-article basis by the developers; if so, it really should be exposed to end users. *** Crotalus *** 08:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on the admin board if this is something we should bring to the devs. Lawrence Cohen 14:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Uga Man Presidential Barnstar
		I, Uga Man bestow upon you Lawrence Cohen the Uga Man Presidential Barnstar for your outstanding edits as a wikipedian and for your designation as the first supporter of the presidential campaign of Uga Man

I would like an opportunity to address Horologium's evidence about me on the Bluemarine RFAr. I'm not asking for your support or defense, but your advice on how and where to respond in the context of the RFAr. Any help would be appreciated. Aatombomb (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I enabled it. Aatombomb (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Now it's enabled. Sorry! Aatombomb (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I assume you are not interested in discussing this? Aatombomb (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, hadn't a chance to reply. Very soon! Lawrence Cohen 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Aatombomb (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been chatting with my friend the professor. He understands exactly what happened. You need not feel any stress about that situation. The administrators will deal with that page. Whatever you do, don't get involved in edit warring. If somebody does a POV push, you may revert once using a civil edit summary and then place a neutral comment on the talk page explaining why you reverted and what changes you would be willing to accept. Don't revert more than once or get snarky. I will give this same advice to any other editor who is willing to hear from me. Jehochman ^Talk 06:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tossing in my hand on the RFAr. The block on Sanchez was it. I've expended a great deal of effort on that article, but to have him do something as manifestly stupid as to violate his clearly and narrowly tailored unblock to wade into the waterboarding debate during an arbitration case cannot be justified, defended, or excused. I will continue to watch the RFAr, and will respond if appropriate, but I will not be adding any more to it. Horologium (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very foolish action on his part. Still not as bad as the endless attacks on gays, which trumps all in the bad and/or evil side of things, since intolerance is horrendous. I don't think it will end well. Lawrence Cohen 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have noted elsewhere, his attacks on gays are not acceptable, but (I know this sounds childish) "they started it". AFAICT, Sanchez never denounced gay activists for being gay until they outed him. He clearly was out to bash left-wingers, but not specifically those who were gay. He was subjected to a tremendous amount of abuse by gay bloggers, which I think he compounded with his nasty and bigoted insults, but he wasn't the one who started the fight. What he does not seem to realize is that not everyone who is gay is a left-wing "BDS" sufferer out to ruin him. Even some gay editors who are left-of-center are not trying to smear him; WjBscribe has clearly stated that he doesn't agree Sanchez's politics, yet he has been very diligent in removing BLP violations, because it is the right thing to do. For that, he has been subjected to abuse by both Sanchez detractors and by Sanchez himself (with all of the nonsense about banning gay editors from the article).

Part of the reason I have more a problem with his latest action is my focus on process; I tend to think in concrete terms, and the whole "sticks-and-stones" bit doesn't bother me nearly as much as a clear violation of explicit directions to edit in only three places (which were specifically identified). That is something that is not open to interpretation. 20 years in the military helped me to develop a worldview that eliminates a lot of abstraction, which can be useful in some cases and an hindrance in others. I consider it relevant, which is why I note the background on my userpage. Horologium (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Storm_botnet#Wording_in_the_lead, replied there. Lawrence Cohen 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - it was an accident due to an edit conflict. Walton^One 20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik•talk 11:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]