User talk:Loomis51

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Done. This page has been protected to prevent its use as a platform for personal attacks while you're away. All revisions remain available, for reference, in its history.

Should you wish to return to Wikipedia in the future, feel free to contact me or another administrator by email. This page may be unprotected to allow you to request an unblock, if you agree not to make further personal attacks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

After extensive discussions with Loomis by email, I have agreed to unblock him on the condition he abides by our policies and avoids making personal attacks. He has agreed to this. Rockpocket 05:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

Hi!

Welcome back, Lewis! Wikipedia missed you. I wish I could see those "extensive" discussions with Rockpocket: it seems to be interesting stuff.

While you were out, I found out that there is a cabal and it lies on the RfA process: it seems to be biased, so all administrators share some common views and habits.

Some people are trying to destroy the cabal by changing the requirements to become an administrator. I became an advocate of every user being also an administrator, but there is one main problem (and possibly others as well): administrators nowadays can unblock themselves, and that would ruin everything if everyone were an administrator, because it would be too hard and bureaucratic to get rid of administrator vandals.

StuRat is trying to make the guidelines for the reference desk something non-deletionist. I'm trying to help as I can, and maybe you can participate as well.

I submitted myself to the RfA process, to find out whether I would be elected or not and also to see what reasons people would choose to support and oppose me. But an user named Majorly decided to stop my whole process based on some kind of teleological argument. I most kindly asked Majorly to revert what he had done, but he refused to do so and refused to discuss with me. Then I became incivil and so I have been blocked for 24 hours. Apparentely my RfA continued for a little while and everyone who voted after I was blocked chose my "conduct on talk page" and "trolling" as their reasons to oppose my adminship. A.Z. 09:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, A.Z., while admins can unblock themselves (in that there is no technical way of restricting access to the unblock button) they are not permitted to do so. Unblocking oneself is an abuse of the tools and is the quickest way to become desysoped.
Also, If I could offer some advice to Loomis, coming back of a block and participating in a process that led to the block of someone else is probably not the best idea. I'd try and avoid highly contentious issues for a while, if i were you. Rockpocket 18:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to speak and already I seem to be in some sort of trouble. I gave you my word, Rockpocket, that whatever the circumstances, I would remain civil, and you gave me your word that you would excercize fairness. I have absolutely no intention of participating in any sort of disruptive or uncivil behaviour. Now I'm not accusing you of being unfair, I'm just curious, how many times must I and the rest of the Wiki community be reminded that I'm an ex-indef-block? Can we please move on? Lewis 23:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And to A.Z., despite the feeling we may share about other Admins, they're a diverse group just like the rest of us. So far this one's a good one. While certain others seem to treat the idea of "fairness" and "truth" almost as if they were four-letter words, Rockpocket seems to be in agreement with me on the vital importance of these two aspects for Wikipedia. With that in mind, I suggest we excercize W:AGF and give him the respect he apparently deserves, unless and until he proves otherwise, an event which I sincerely doubt. Lewis 23:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Loomis. My, admittedly very clumsily worded response was actually directed to A.Z., to indicate that it would be not in your interests for him to invite you to get involved with his campaign. I didn't intend it to come across as a warning. Just to be clear, I have no intentions of babysitting you. You are entirely free to do whatever you wish without me "advising" you further. As such I will not be monitoring your contributions, but you know where I am should you like to speak to me. Rockpocket 23:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back...

...and remember this is supposed to be fun. David D. (Talk) 23:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. I'll try to keep that in mind. I just hope that this time around, all are invited on equal terms to join in on the fun. Lewis 23:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My Apologies to Jack

I'd just like to take this opportunity to offer to you, Jack, my trusted Wikimentor, my sincerest apologies for any and all hurtful remarks directed your way. While no personal attacks are acceptable, those I directed at you were all the worse as they were directed at one of the few within this community for whom I have the greatest deal of respect and admiration.

While personally attacking those who personally attacked me was small, petty and an unacceptable breach of decorum, personally attacking you, Jack, was just plain perverse. And for that I issue this specific apology to you, and to you only. Lewis 23:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Lewis. Your apology is very welcome and completely accepted. It shows you to be a person with a sense of decency and humility, qualities I wish I had more of. Warm regards. Jack -- JackofOz 00:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem Jack.
Please don't take this the wrong way, as it's in no way meant as a criticism of your gracious response, but hidden in there was one hell of a self-deprecatory remark! "[D]ecency and humility, qualities I wish I had more of"? These words are far beyond a mere display of modesty. Please email me to tell me what's on your mind. As it stands, those words are far too self-critical for me to let go unnoticed. Lewis 00:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your writing skills

Maybe you wanna help us translate an article from Portuguese. Here is the link: User:A.Z./Translation A.Z. 02:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love too. I'm just a bit confused. It already seems to be translated. Is it that you'd like me to review the translation and see if I can improve it? Lewis 03:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was it, because I don't speak English very well. Anyway, StuRat already improved it so there's no need for you anymore :) I'm kidding! Of course there's a need for you, in other places, I mean.
Or maybe you have some more suggestions to make? I think it's not needed that we spend more time with that article. Maybe you, I and StuRat could translate together more stuff from Portuguese from now on. You speak French, so that would be useful. A.Z. 06:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Guidelines

Lewis, please drop the keyboard and slowly back away from the monitor. I haven't even followed your previous "debates" with Clio and I can see where this is going.

  • Firstly, this has nothing to do with the guidelines. If you want to discuss these issues, take it to Amp'd talkpage. If you have a comment on forging a guideline, do so without reference to Clio.
  • Secondly, Amp'd motives have nothing to do with you. If he feels unwilling to debate with Clio, that is his problem. You worry about you, he can look after himself.
  • Finally, you brought this subject up. You did. Its hardly surprising - though not constructive - that she responded with some pissy comments. So don't go crying about insinuated personal attacks when you started off referring to "an "elite class" of certain other editors, against whom disagreement is felt to be forbidden."

Also, saying "it's best for me to avoid any direct confrontation with her" while being confrontational does not kid anyone. Now, you have made you point, so I strongly suggest you WP:COOL off and I will ask Clio to do likewise. You started this, so now its time for you to stop it before it gets out of control again. Rockpocket 00:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well. At this very moment I'm being reined in by Stu as well. You're both right I suppose, in that this was the wrong place to bring it up. But do you not at least understand my point? My being blocked has now caused others to gag themselves. Yes, I suppose I "instigated" this one, but I hope you realize the sincerity of my concern. The fact that AMP'd felt the need to back off is NOT a good thing.
Also, I hope you appreciate the effort I'm putting in here to restrain myself. You gently warned Clio to avoid involving herself in contentious discussions regarding Nazis and Jews, and yet, up comes a question entitled "Nazis vs. Jews" and she couldn't help but leap on it with yet some more disturbing comments. That was not right. Lewis 01:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you know for sure that AMP'd was not making a comic aside to your run-ins with Clio? Is there any evidence that this is nothing more than a little joke at Clio's expense? Did you check with AMP'd first? These are things you should be sure of before making grand statements that are sure to be confrontational. It is not a good thing if others are afraid of answering questions that Clio has commented in, but you were not blocked for engaging with Clio, you were blocked for making personal attacks against her on your talkpage. If others are not capable of engaging with her without resorting to personal attacks, it is better for them that do feel gagged. If you are concerned with this, why don't you ask AMP'd to clarify what he meant.
I don't believe I did tell Clio to avoid discussions regarding Nazis and Jews, neither did I ask you to do that. What I asked you both was to keep your comments neutral and avoid criticizing each other. What is "disturbing" about her comments? That you disagree with them? If you have a problem with the verifiability of a comment from her, ask her for a reference to establish it. If she can, then so what if it disturbs you? If she can't then everyone will know it is simply her personal opinion, nothing more. If her stating her opinion disturbs you then you should either convince StuRat to drop his vehement objections to strict verifiability on the Desk, or else learn to accept that people will have differing opinions to you. Rockpocket 01:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Do you think you can help me with my questions:

--Goingempty 01:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'll give it a shot. The thing is I only answer questions when I'm relatively confident that I can give a reasonably accurate response. I'm not sure if it was you, but someone asked about the Dow Jones takeover. Though I remember enough about securities law to explain why a person can't just sneak up and take control of a company, there was a follow up question with regard to the excess that the bidder was willing to pay over the market cap. My recollection of why that occurs was quite a bit more vague, so I chose not to answer, as I try to make it a rule to do my best to only give accurate answers. If you'd like, I can provide you with possibly less than accurate, yet reasonably educated response to those questions, but I'll have to label them as such. You see, I'm a non-practicing lawyer, and learning law is analogous to a certain extent to learning a foreign language. If you don't use it, you lose it! Lewis 11:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I never asked a question previous to this, regarding Dow Jones. But I will run a google search trying to find that particular question in archives. No one is helping me with the knowledge I need, so I guess a less acurate response is better than none. Anyways I asked a followup question, in the hostile takeover question on the humanities desk. --Goingempty 19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: I couldnt find using Google Search engine the question you are talking about. Do you know when you posted that answer? Or do you have a link to the previous question you are talking about. --Goingempty 20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar. Due diligence is a lot harder than it may seem. Just as you awarded it to me, a simple, respectful and polite objection, in other words, a warning to all readers that the one editor alone, while having every right to speak his/her mind, does not speak the Gospel truth. Others disagree. See below for the details.
As for the link, I'm at work now so I can't spend much time, but I'll definitely do my best to find it as soon as I can. Thanks again for the Barnstar! The excercisizing of due dilligence is a tough and very unpopular job, but somebody's gotta do it! Lewis 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying yet! I really want to help you out here, but as you can see below I'm involved in a rather time consuming effort to correct what I see as a terrible mischaracterization of the Holocaust. I'd honestly prefer to discuss the subjects you brought up, and I intend to do so at my earliest convenience. I just have to get this other thing over with first. Hope you understand! Lewis 17:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

don't play with matches

I removed it again. Please don't antagonise the situation. If you really need to comment then present a source that makes the point for you. David D. (Talk) 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And inevitably get into another ugly fight? I want to avoid that at all costs, while still voicing my objection. Why do you keep doubting my sincerity? I truly, honestly, sincerely, genuinely find the post to be extremely offensive. All I want is to be on record as respectfully objecting, and nothing more. I said I would speak no further of it and I fully intend to do so. If Clio can't tolerate the fact that not all agree on her assessment of history, that's her problem, not mine. I simply, politely, respectfully, yet strenuously object.
The day a simple, polite, respectful objection gets removed as being "divisive" or "antagonistic" is the day the RefDesk dies.
Please restore my objection, or I will. In any case, it will remain. No editor is beyond objection. Do you even realize what you're doing when you stifle a simple, polite, respectful objection? For God's sake David, you've always been a reasonable guy! Please think this through and reflect on just what you're doing here. Lewis 20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt your sincerity but you did not provide a source. If you put up the same objection and provided a source I would not object. As it stood it was not useful to any causal reader and was just asking for trouble (trouble for you, that is). Anything which gives the OP access to more information is fine by me but avoid the debate and just present the sources that support your objection. Surely that is a fair request and an optimal strategy? David D. (Talk) 20:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
David, I tried that! Over and over and over. In fact the only reason I got blocked was because I tried that route on all too many occasions. I cite a source, she responds with insults and the rest is ugliness. Do you really want that to happen again?
An editor who simply cannot tolerate any disagreement with her simply does not qualify as a Wikipedia editor. It's really that simple.
Just look at what happened just now. Why couldn't SHE just accept that I disagree with her and leave it at that, rather than responding with such vitriol? Who's the incivil one here again?
How about this, we make a deal. You restore my post, let her rant and rave about some malicious conspiracy against her, and watch me NOT respond. I will NOT say a word. NOT ONE WORD. If I do, than feel free to delete the whole thing.
Could you give me the benefit of the doubt just this once, and see what follows? Lewis 21:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you give me a source or sources and I'll place it there for you. Is that a good compromise? The problem is that this has become far more than an issue of content and more of a personal feud. It is not healthy for either of you. David D. (Talk) 21:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Lewis. The Ref Desk is not a forum for stating opinion, its for providing information that is useful to readers. How is the fact that you a response "truly, honestly, sincerely, genuinely" offensive informative to anyone but you? Its not. I don't wish to sound rude, but the fact is no-one cares about your personal opinion because your opinion is not notable. If we all took to stating what interpretations of history we found offensive, each question would be followed by hundreds of random opinions. So, if you believe something about it to be incorrect (then simply state what you believe to be incorrect and ask for a reference for it, or provide you own reference to demonstrate why you think it is incorrect). If "she responds with insults" then drop me a note and I will deal with that. I'm really struggling to understand how why you would not follow this process when it has been explained to you a number of times. So please, refrain from stating objections in future, this is not a court of law.
I think you are playing with fire here, and what I have seen over the last few days hardly equates with the story that you were a victim of bias. In this time you engaged Clio in a manner that was not neutral, nor constructive, nor was it addressing her specific comments. You engaged her, not the other way around. She has been asking me for advice on how to respond, as I asked her to. You have yet to ask me for assistance, as I asked you to. So, I implore you, consider again whether the purpose of your editing here on Wikipedia, because all I can see is attempts to set your stall out aginst Clio, rather then being constructive. Rockpocket 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I notice AMP'd's response below. Perhaps you might also like to consider whether, in retrospect, your comments on the guideline talkpage were merited. Rockpocket 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Where to begin! There are just too many misinterpretations and mischaracterizations in so many areas to respond to all at once, so I'll restrict my focus to one major theme: Clio's assertion that Hitler was so terribly reluctant to exterminate the Jews that he pretty much went to every length possible to find some more humane alternative, only to finally and reluctantly be forced, for purely logistical reasons of course, to regrettably resort to such an "Un-German" act as Genocide.
For convenience, I'll reproduce the following paragraph:
"By the spring of 1940 it was becoming increasingly clear that the policy of of using the General Government as a 'racial dustbin' was causing huge logistical problems. In May 1940 Himmler addressed the issue in a wide-ranging memorandum, in which he rejects 'the Bolshevik method of physically exterminating a people as fundamentally un-German.' (Lees, p.45) He goes on to say that I hope to see the term 'Jews' completely eliminated through the possibility of large-scale emigration of all Jews to Africa or to some other colony. When Himm[l]er discussed this proposal with Hitler he was told that it was gut und richtig (good and correct). But, as you indicate, the tenacity of England effectively put an end to all such notions by the autumn and winter of that same year. The problem in the General Government remained, and got steadily worse with the arrival of additional deportees."
What possible source can be any more reliable than the words man [sic] himself?:
"But he who dares to use the word "God" for such devilish activity blasphemes against Providence and, according to our belief, he cannot end except in destruction". Speaking before the Reichstag about Jews and international "warmongers," - 4 May 1941
"I, for my part, acknowledge another precept which says that man must deal the final blow to those whose downfall is destined by God." Address to the Reichstag, 6 April 1942
"Providence shows no mercy to weak nations, but recognizes the right of existence-only of sound and strong nations." …
"We have suffered so much that it only steels us to fanatical resolve to hate our enemies a thousand times more and to regard them for what they are, destroyers of an eternal culture and annihilators of humanity. Out of this hate a holy will is born to oppose these destroyers of our existence with all the strength that God has given us and to crush them in the end. During its 2,000-year history our people has survived so many terrible times that we have no doubt that we will also master our present plight." - In a recorded radio address, 24 February 1945
(My emphasis)
Hmmm ... "destruction", "the final blow", no right of "existence", "crush them" ... is it at all possible that Hitler was just a bit less reluctant, and a bit more enthusiastic about the extermination of the Jews, and not simply their forced emmigration to Madagascar than our Expert Historian would have us believe? Did Hitler truly believe that Genocide was really all that "un-German"?
Kinda makes you wonder, eh? And those are just three quotes on one particular aspect! I haven't even made it to Mein Kampf!
You wanted sources, you've got sources.
Now am I allowed to voice my strenuous, yet respectful objection to the characterization of events as portrayed in the post in question?
On the other hand, perhaps you're all right. Perhaps upsetting Clio is far worse a deed than pointing to all who read the RefDesk that she may, just may actually be capable of error.
The choice is yours. Lewis 23:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the problem in that paragraph, are you saying that the source Clio provides for her statements is incorrect (Lees, p.45)? If thats what you think, then say so and provide an alternative source that suggests that didn't happen. If you think that did happen, but don't believe it has the significance Clio give it then say so, and provide a source for that. Or, if you believe those quotes from Hitler indicate that extermination was always his plan, then reproduce them and state that. Your interpretation of sources is as valid (on invalid) as hers, so provide yours and let the the OP decide.
However, there is still no need to "voice my strenuous, yet respectful objection to the characterization of events" because this is not a debating forum. Just say "I disagree with the above interpretation because..." provide your sourced interpretation and leave it at that. Do not personalise the issue by refering to her, do not critiqe her comments by quoting them back and do not make sarcastic asides ("our Expert Historian"). If you goal is to provide the OP with the correct version of events (as you see it) than you have no need for any of the above. If you goal is to dismiss Clio's contributions, then you shouldn't be saying anything because that is not constructive. If she is wrong, there is no net value to the OP in pointing out Clio is "capable of error", there is value to providing the right, sourced answer. Rockpocket 03:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket and Jack of Oz, I have now posted the entire thread of the debate for 11/12 April, from the original question onwards, which concerns the precise dating of Hitler's order for mass murder. It is not concerned with his anti-semitism as such, which dates back to the very early days of the Nazi Party, but with a particular decision and the exact historical circumstances in which it came about. The quotations by User Loomis, two of which in fact post-date my best 'guesstimate' for the Holocaust order, are therefore utterly and fatuously beside the point. I could provide quote after quote from Hitler from 1920 onwards, none of which would be material to the precise point under consideration, namely a specific order, or set of orders. Hostility towards the Jews was always part of the Nazi programme; mass murder was not. If it was it could be dated to 30 January 1933 or 1 September 1939. If we simply scream in an irrational fashion that the Nazis wanted killing, and always wanted killing; if we abandon all attempts at serious scholarly analysis, then we might as well concede the high ground to David Irving and all of the other Holocaust deniers, because they will occupy it with alacrity, pointing out all of the historical inconsistencies in an argument without detailed foundation. I am a scholar, I think in a scholarly way and I react in a scholarly way. I base all my arguments on specific data and precise investigation, and will never surrender to the rant and the broadside. If I do, if all scholars do, then everything is lost. And, Jack, I do not think it unreasonable to describe the word 'mischaracterization' as malicious, because it served to undermine everything I had written. Clio the Muse 06:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Clio, if another editor had used the word 'mischaracterization' in a response to one of your posts, I doubt you would have taken it as malicious, because you'd have had little or no history with the person to form such an opinion. However, the war between you and Lewis is still colouring your attitude to each other. Saying that a person has mischaracterised something is not necessarily saying they did so with any particular evil agenda in mind. Lewis didn't say the mischaracterisation was wilful on your part, so I don't see how it undermines anything you said. I think it is quite a mild comment in the scheme of things. It registers robust disagreement in an acceptable way (even if, in this case, Lewis didn't take the necessary next step to explain why he disagreed with you). Far better that, than to use words like "blundered", "lied", or similar. On the other hand, referring to the "malicious hints" contained in another's edits is going beyond the edits themselves, into the personal motivations of the editor. Nobody knows such things on Wikipedia, and when we presume to know that, trouble arises. This came a lot closer to a personal attack than anything Lewis said. That's why I thought your response was as inappropriate as Lewis's post was. JackofOz 03:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree completely. I cannot believe that any other editor would use a word like 'mischaracterize' and nothing besides, which, does indeed, serve to undermine all that has gone before. With anyone else I would have asked for an explanation; not from User Loomis, not under any circumstances. Clio the Muse 04:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess that means you chose to deny him the benefit of the doubt that you would have given others. That's ok, Clio, there's no Wikipedia policy that says you have to treat everyone equally. He's got a pretty weird attitude to you, too. You clearly don't trust each other yet. I just wanted to be clear about where things stood between you. Thanks. JackofOz 10:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, on reflection, what this seems to suggest to me is that you're both at a point where you won't assume good faith about anything Lewis does because he won't assume good faith about anything you do, because you won't assume good faith about anything Lewis does because he won't assume good faith about anything you do, because you won't assume good faith about anything Lewis does because he won't assume good faith about anything you do, because ..... do you see what this has become? It is now completely irrelevant how this ever started. Both of you keep on adding fuel to the fire. Even choosing to avoid having direct contact with the other is adding energy to the feud. JackofOz 10:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, supplementary to the above, I have to make it clear that if these words reappear on the Humanities Desk, even if 'supported' with misapplied quotations, and with bogus nods to 'all due respect', I will respond with forensic precision, mustering all of the skills at the disposal of my intellect. More than that, as the item is on the threshold of archiving, and thus changes no longer appear in the page history, I think it would be only proper for me to repost the whole thread to the latest date, just so the whole community knows what is going on, and that attempts to undermine and question my intellectual integrity are proceeding at the same old pace, nothing learned and nothing forgotten. It is not a question about coping with disagreement: I would not be where I am today if I could not cope with mature debate. It is a question of defending myself against the invidious and the insinious. I really could not care less if the irrational hate campaign against me continues at the truly ridiculous Wikiversity, where I appear as a Nazi apologist, a practitioner of black magic, a person who wishes to gas all Jews, amongst many other epithets; I do not care, because for me this has long been a source of huge amusement. However, I will not have it here in Wikipedia, where I have come to expect, and demand, a high standard of rational and detached debate. I could not care less, moreover, for User Loomis-though I know just how deeply he cares about me-and, as I made plain some time ago, I will never enter into direct debate with him on any matter whatsoever; but I think we should all be fully aware that his hate campaign continues in the same unrelenting fashion, even to the extent of misinterpreting another user's casual aside, and the truly bizarre inference that any disagreement with me will lead to a block. Would I had that much power! Clio the Muse 07:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, Jack, for relocating your post.

(restoring indent) Lewis, let me tell you how I see this problem. You found something in Clio's post to be objectionable. That's fine. Nobody disputes your right to be offended by things that truly offend you. However, as others have said above, the way to counter her remarks is to provide a source that refutes them. Merely saying "I am offended and I object", even if said respectfully and courteously, but not saying why you were offended, and not providing a source for your differering interpretation, goes nowhere. You stated that Clio "mischaracterized" events, but you didn't point out a single one of her mischaracterisations. It was up to you to do that. On the other side of the ledger, Clio's use of the words ".. with all of its malicious hints ..." was unbecoming, and I'm sure that that, as much as what you said, contributed to why this part of the thread was removed. You started it with an inappropriate post, she countered with an equally inappropriate one, and you were both sent to the sin-bin. I don't believe you were writing with malicious intent, but since you didn't back up your objection with any further material, it's not hard, given your and Clio's past history, to see why she might have come to that conclusion (even if it was inappropriate for her to state it). JackofOz 03:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So what, Jack, do you suggest I do? If I don't provide sources, I'm accused of making a baseless claim. If I do provide sources the result is ugliness, just look at the foregoing for a fine example. My intention is to avoid this ugliness to the very best of my abilities. It's basically a no-win situation. I'm not saying that Clio made any literal misquotes. What I said straight from the beginning is that her overall assessment, is, in my opinion, grossly inaccurate. Of course she may be right, but then of course I may be right. The point is that I disagree.
I've been away from Wikipedia for a couple of days and I've just caught up on how this debate has been progressing. I think Rockpocket has said what needs to be said, way down below. But to answer you, Lewis, my comment on "If I do provide sources the result is ugliness" is this: if you expect ugliness, that's probably what you'll get. You are able to say "I disagree with the above, for reasons X, Y and Z", provide a source to back up your opinion, sign your name, and leave it that. Perfectly courteous, perfectly appropriate, perfectly acceptable. If the original poster wants to come back with ugliness, that is their lookout, and they will be condemned out of their own mouths. But you certainly wouldn't have been contributing to any ugliness, Lewis. Generally speaking, if you avoid doing something for fear of what another party might do in return, that is what tends to eventuate anyway. That which you resist, persists. JackofOz 03:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Before Hitler had the power at his disposal, he obviously couldn't speak much of "extermination", he was far to clever than that. It's clear as day to me that he gradually "ramped up" his project of extermination until the point came when he had the political means to go through with it, just as he cleverly and gradually "ramped up" his project of conquering most, if not all of Europe, beginning with the most relatively reasonable acquisitions that the allies were willing to tolerate, and step by step, as his military strength grew, the utterly unreasonable ones: first the Rhineland, then Austria, then the Sudetenland, then Czechoslovakia, then Poland, France, the attempts to take Russia and England etc.
Does anyone honestly believe that he was being sincere when he swore to Chamberlain that the Sudetenland/Czechoslovakia was his last ambition, as now he had completely unified all of the German speaking peoples? Of course not!
Similarly, the whole Madacasgar absurdity was yet another of his ruses. Does anyone honestly believe that once he had the political capital to exterminate the Jews, he rather coincidentally and overnight switched 180° from agreeing with Himmler that extermination was "un-German", to enthusiastically endorsing extermination as revealed in my above quotes? The proposition is so absurd it's beyond credulity.
Yet again, this is obviously a no win situation for me. It's gotten to the point where if Clio states that 1+1=3, and I object, stating: "I'm sorry, but I disagree. 1+1 clearly equals 2", even that would be construed as an unwise provocation, and deleted in all due haste.
I've said my peace. I can already predict the coming onslaught of criticism, yet I'm in no mood to respond any further. Rockpocket will return with a response telling me that he once again doesn't see any merit to my argument, (and similar to his previous words, I don't mean to be rude, but his personal assessment of the merits of my argument are rather irrelevant,) and Clio will no doubt react by firing yet another salvo of ugliness my way to divert attention from my actual argument. I'm therefore done commenting on this one, and will provide no further comment, (except if it involves a suggestion as to how to "properly" post my argument). As to the next misrepresentation by whatever editor, I'll once again be there voicing my disagreement and respond in whatever fashion is deemed most apropriate and civil. Lewis 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, it's been quite a few hours and not a single response. Should I take it that it's now acceptable to post my argument? I'll let another six or so hours to pass just to be sure. In the meantime, the following is the "cleaned up" version I intend to post:
(Beginning of Post)
I respectfully disagree with the foregoing analysis for the following reasons.
For example, consider the following quotes made by Hitler:
"But he who dares to use the word "God" for such devilish activity blasphemes against Providence and, according to our belief, he cannot end except in destruction". Speaking before the Reichstag about Jews and international "warmongers," - 4 May 1941
"I, for my part, acknowledge another precept which says that man must deal the final blow to those whose downfall is destined by God." Address to the Reichstag, 6 April 1942
"Providence shows no mercy to weak nations, but recognizes the right of existence-only of sound and strong nations." …
"We have suffered so much that it only steels us to fanatical resolve to hate our enemies a thousand times more and to regard them for what they are, destroyers of an eternal culture and annihilators of humanity. Out of this hate a holy will is born to oppose these destroyers of our existence with all the strength that God has given us and to crush them in the end. During its 2,000-year history our people has survived so many terrible times that we have no doubt that we will also master our present plight." - In a recorded radio address, 24 February 1945
(My emphasis)
Interesting. "Destruction", "the final blow", no right of "existence", "crush them" ... it would seem to me that Hitler was quite a bit less reluctant and a quite a bit more enthusiastic about the extermination of the Jews than the above characterization of events would seem to imply. Did Hitler truly believe that Genocide was really all that "un-German"?
Of course the reader will certainly note that the above quotes were made, depending on whatever date one places as the beginning of the Holocaust, only after the Holocaust had begun, or perhaps just slightly before. The reason that he only felt free to express these words when he did is rather obvious. You just can't spring such a genocidal plan on an electorate, or even on your fellow party members, all at once and expect to remain leader of the party and get elected Chancellor. Before Hitler had the power at his disposal, he obviously couldn't speak much of "extermination". It's clear as day to me that he gradually "ramped up" his project of extermination, beginning with relatively vague antisemitic remarks, until the point came when his antisemitic propaganda took hold amongst the populace to a great enough extent that they were finally psychologically prepared to hear such words as I noted above. That was how Hitler operated. It's virtually identical to the way he cleverly and gradually "ramped up" his project of conquering most, if not all of Europe, by beginning with the most arguably reasonable acquisitions that the allies were willing to tolerate, and then, step by step, as his military strength grew, proceeding to the utterly unreasonable ones: first the Rhineland, then Austria, then the Sudetenland, then Czechoslovakia, then Poland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, the attempts to take Russia and England etc.
Does anyone honestly believe that he was being sincere when he swore to Chamberlain that the Sudetenland/Czechoslovakia was his last ambition, as now he had completely unified all of the German speaking peoples? Does anyone actually believe that Hitler initially intended to abide by the Munich Agreement, only to change his mind about it six months later? Of course not.
Similarly, the whole Madacasgar absurdity was yet another of his ruses. Does anyone honestly believe that once he had the political capital to exterminate the Jews, he rather coincidentally and overnight changed his mind on that one too, by switching 180° from agreeing with Himmler that extermination was completely "un-German", to enthusiastically endorsing extermination as revealed in my above quotes?
I have no doubt in my mind that at the very moment Hitler put his signature to the Munich Agreement, in his mind he was already weighing the alternative military strategies as to how to take Poland. Similarly, when Hitler spoke of some ridiculous "forced emmigration" of the Jews to Madagascar, I have absolutely no doubt that in his mind, at those moments he was pondering the various alternative methods of mass extermination.
With regard to the assertion that the gas chamber and the oven were chosen because they were psychologically less traumatic for Nazi soldiers, I couldn't possibly disagree more. One of the most psychological disturbing aspects of the Holocaust, giving it its outstanding notoriety is indeed the use of the gas chamber and the crematorium. The image of thousands of completely naked human beings being coralled like animals into a death chamber, only to then be cooked in ovens, is, to myself at least, infinitely more psychologically disturbing than the idea of those same individuals being machine gunned and thrown into a mass grave. Yet the above argument asserts that the "gas-and-cook" method was chosen because it was less psychologically traumatic to the German witnesses, and from what I personally infer seems to a statement that it was somehow more humane. To this I leave you the following final quote, from a speech by Hitler dated way back to 1923, a full two decades before the Holocaust reached its absolute height:
"It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God." Speech in Munich, 1 August 1923
Of course the original analysis may be right and mine may be wrong. Or vice versa. This is just my take on the whole thing. It's now up to the reader to decide which interpretation is more convincing.
(End of Post)
Take your time in assessing the civility of the above counter-argument. If it is in any way inappropriate, please tell me so and if need be, I'll further edit it. However, should no one respond by some time this evening (it's about noon here now) I'll take the liberty of assuming that my argument is now phrased in the appropriate manner, and I'll post it. Lewis 15:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Lewis. I don't have a problem with that at all in terms if civility (except I'd advise you refrain from suggesting something "almost seems to even imply" when what you actually mean is "from that I personally infer.")
I do think it is full of personal musings, rhetorical questions and unsourced, not to mention unsourceable, speculation ("I absolutely have absolutely no doubt that in his mind..." and "I have no doubt in my mind that...in his mind..." and " Does anyone actually believe... Of course not.") The whole paragraph starting "Similarly, the whole Madacasgar absurdity..." is totally without any factual merit to the OP. Its simply your personal belief followed by a rhetorical question to boster it. How about you actually provide some context to show us that an expert (rather than some anonymous contributor) did some analysis and came to that conclusion?
This is exactly what the Ref Desk should not be for and is totally against the spirit of the recently forged guidelines. Those phrases make it very clear you are engaging in debate, rather than simply providing information, because there is no information there, simply opinion.
Nevertheless, it appears from my brief reading of the humanities desk that it is chock full of open ended questions that regularly spawn such debate. If I had the time and energy I would attempt to cull all of that, but I don't. Since it appears the norm, it would be unfair of me to tell you should should not contribute in type. So, if you wish to post this type of unsourced speculation then go ahead, as long is its civil I doubt anyone would complain. However, I would refer you to the guidelines that suggests we should make it very clear when the answer you provide is not sourced. Therefore you should preface your answer with a clear disclaimer that this is your personal opinion. Then the OP can make of it what he or she chooses.

I did that in the last paragraph. Perhaps you missed it. Lewis 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have to tell you, I learned absolutely nothing from your response except what you believe Hitler's motivations where. This is the reason why there is such animosity between you guys - because you give your opinions on a matter of personal importance to you, and then get personally offended when they are countered. Quelle freaking surprise! Well, it is beyond my control should you choose to continue along these lines. However, I'm warning you now: Clio will very likely come back with a retort and you will feel compelled to reply to that. With each answer you will get more and more irate and the snide personal attacks will return. Before you know it, you will be blocked again. So, ask youself, is this really the path you want to go down? If so, go right ahead, but don't be surprised with the inevitable outcome. Rockpocket 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Loud and clear. Just to be clear though, her argument is just as full with personal conjecture as mine. The difference being that I'm honest enough to admit that my conjecture is indeed conjecture, by using words such as "In my mind" etc. As I said, I will not reply to whatever ugliness she'll inevitably spew. I take your comments as a "yellow light", and therefore I will now post my response. Lewis 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did miss that comment in the last paragraph. It would be better stating its an opinion straight off so OPs can skip it if it is not of interest to them, but thats no big deal. I don't accept that her argument is full of personal conjecture. She makes it very clear where her source for her info comes from, and then - when she deviates from the source to give her own opinion she makes that entirely clear also ("If I were pushed to choose a specific time-frame, on the basis of the evidence as it presents itself, it would be October 1941"). I am not a historian, so she could be totally misrepresenting the source. However, I am an academic - and her answer reads very much like a neutral scholarly analysis using a reliable source. In contrast, your counter argument has no reliable source to back it up and relies entirely on suggesting that Hitler was murderous, as evidenced by his subsequent actions, therefore he must have always had some murderous masterplan. Quite frankly, it seems amateurish - and the purpose of it comes across as being squarely aimed at Clio rather than providing any sort of factual analysis. I don't think posting it will do yourself any favours in the eyes of anyone, apart from re-inforce the view that you have an agenda against her, and it certainly provides no more factual information (which is the point of the desk). Anyway, I've had my say. In the interests of stopping this getting out of hand, I have also asked Clio to let you have your say without undue response (trying to be fair, remember). Rockpocket 19:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm very glad you brought all that up. In doing so, you've struck the very heart of the problem. Undue reverence is given to this or that historian's published account of history as being authoritative in any sense. Though I'm loathe to rely on hyperlinks to back up my arguments, this [1] one is exceptional, as well as rather short. I really hope you read it.
No, I doubt Clio is misrepresenting the source. Rather, the source is misrepresenting history. Laurence Rees, the "source" of all this "fact", is no stranger to controversy. He's been criticized repeatedly for his historical falsifications. Here [2], for example, is a letter of protest for his alleged falsifications of history in the BBC documentary Lenin’s Secret Files. Here [3] he's accused by British MP and historian Dr. Julian Lewis of yet again falsifying history in the BBC’s Hiroshima Disgrace. In short, Rees' account is at least as subjective, and, based on his track record, likely far less reliable than even my own.
If you'd like, rather than admit that my analysis of history is indeed my take on the events in question, I could easily take Clio's approach, do a little "historian shopping" until I find one whose views support my own. A rather impressive selection is available in the first article I linked to. Among the thousands of historians available, with their thousands of accompanying slants on history, Clio chose Rees. I, on the other hand, find the whole "historian shopping" idea to be rather academically dishonest. I simply absorb the hard facts, and present my conclusions as what they are: my conclusions. Lewis 03:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This does all come down to my objection to argument from authority. Clio's "scholarly analysis" and Rees' published analyses are both still just opinions. As such they shouldn't be given any more weight than anybody else's opinion. StuRat 04:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"A society that values all philosophers above all plumbers will in the end have neither good philosophy or good plumbing - neither their philisophical theories or pipes will hold water." StuRat 04:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That is very enlightening, Lewis. Your last comment is a perfectly valid and much more convincing rebuttal that your previous effort. There is no doubt different historians have different interpretations of history. Just because you are an expert doesn't make you right, indeed when there are conflicting expert interpretations, only one can be correct, and we have no definite way of knowing which one that is. We only have our own opinion on that. This is why our core policy states that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So, instead of responding to Clio's response, it is much more useful to the OP for you to respond to her source.
Here is the reason why. You may consider it to be "academically dishonest" to search for a reliable source to support your interpretation, but in doing so she is simply following the guidelines. If you choose to provide your de novo interpretation than that is your choice, but everyone is is highly likely to think along these lines:

"Lets see, on one hand I have the recounted interpretation of an expert published by the BBC, on the other I have the interpretation of some anonymous person on the internet who is primarily known for arguing with the person who provided the sourced interpretation.... which one should I believe?"

However, if you provide your sources that accuse Lees of bias, make the case that historian opinion differs wildly on this (and provide a source for that) and then give an alternative interpretation (even if it is your own), then you have provided some very useful info. Moreover, can you see how that in doing that you are no longer criticising Clio, who you admit is doing what one is asked to on a reference desk: accurately represent a verifiable source. What you are doing is criticising her reference, which is absolutely fine. In doing this you immediately depersonalise the issue, reduce the scope for conflict, provide verifiable information and make a much stronger case for you own opinion. Everyone wins. Rockpocket 17:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being a bit dense (no sarcasm intended), but I honestly don't quite know what to make of what you wrote. I can't tell if it's criticism or praise, or a bit of both. Didn't I provide the sources you're asking for a few paragraphs up? Are you saying that it should have been on the RefDesk as well as my talkpage? I'm rather confused here, yet I sincerely do want to understand what you're trying to say. Could you perhaps clarify it? Lewis 21:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Its neither criticism nor praise, I was simply trying to explain that your second argument - that Lees' take on things has been disputed by other historians - is both more appropriate, more useful and more convincing to Ref Desk readers, that simply stating your personal objection. It appears you went ahead and posted your unqualified opinion anyway, so the point is moot, and I'm not sure there is anything to be gained by carrying the debate on. But perhaps next time you disagree with something Clio recounts from a source, you might consider taking that sort of depersonalised approach. I think it is more constructive for everyone. Rockpocket 22:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
If one's source is not reliable (and significant sources criticizing one's source would be used to establish that), and if one was aware that one was using unreliable sources, that would be grounds for criticism. I often find "sources" from Creationists to fall into this category, as they aren't based on science at all. StuRat 02:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
StuRat, Clio's source appears to be perfectly reliable as an expert interpretation of history. There may be conflicting expert opinion on these matters, but that doesn't make her source unreliable. Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever provided that Clio's source doesn't provide the consensus among academics, or that Clio is not providing the most accurate source she can find? Why would she purposely use a source she knew to be incorrect? If you had any evidence for that allegation then you might have a point, so please provide it. If you can't, then your comment is nothing more than a slur by implication. Rockpocket 05:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it all to third person supposition (making it rather more difficult to follow), are you happy now ? StuRat 05:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I agree with the general point: one shouldn't misrepresent the reliability of sources, one should not intentionally give sources undue weight and one should not soapbox using biased sources. However, I don't see the relevent of that to this particular thread unless you are suggesting Clio or Lewis is engaging in these actions. Are you? Rockpocket 05:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This thread was discussing Lewis's criticism of Clio. If this criticism was based on Lewis thinking that Clio was intentionally using unreliable sources, then, indeed, if true, that would be a valid criticism. Thus, this is entirely relevant to the thread. Please let me know if you want me to remove all the proper nouns again to avoid a "slur by implication", as you put it. StuRat 07:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
While that is indeed true if someone was intentionally misusing unreliable sources, for anyone to assume that of any other editor would be severely lacking in good faith. Moreover, commenting on motivation for edits, rather than edits themselves, is contrary to WP:NPA. Since Lewis has not indicated that, for you to mentioned it seemed like either a non sequitur or a suggestion that you did believe that youself. However, as long as you are clear that it is not the latter, I have no objections to you using this dispute to realize your hypothetical scenario. Rockpocket 08:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of Due Dilligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
You are awarded this barnstar of due dilligence, because of your community service to Wikipedia. Thank you. Goingempty 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Request for Clarification

Well, your squabble a while back with Clio took up a large amount of the talk page, and many users must have seen it. The question I was answering had a similar subject matter (Nazis), and I thought a little in-joke about the reference desks would be funny, as well of saying that I planned to steer clear of any more disagreement with Clio on that question and leave the answer as it was. I'm sorry if you felt it insulted you or Clio, or even if it caused any confusion. - AMP'd 20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. - I've known your signature was Lewis for a while, but I tend to call users by the name they signed up with.

removed content from refdesk

Greetings, some content you recently contributed to the reference desk was removed. The following explanation was given: "Note, the preceeding content was modified from its original version. Some unsubstantiated assertions were removed. Other correct statements were also removed so as to avoid discontinuities in the discussion." thanks for your contributions and clarifications. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to respond on my talk page. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Lewis, its not 3RR if a genuine attempt is made to present an alternative, as you did. I'll look at it. David D. (Talk) 13:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Lewis, please stop using the Ref Desk to soapbox. [4] Your prior request for sources was perfectly legitimate and an excellent example of how to go about requesting clarification. However waiting less than 15 hours then using the lack of reply to make a number of personal comments loaded with rhetoric about Clio is not on. I'm often accused of continuing some sort of feud you said, and that entire post is a good example of why people think that.

Now, I don't know why Clio has not responded to your request for a source. Perhaps, because it is a sunday evening in England, she is no longer at the library and was going to reply tomorrow. Perhaps she has no intention of replying: it is nice when people respond to our requests, but it isn't compulsory. Perhaps she can't becuase she doesn't have a source for it (though her reference to specific letters suggests to me that is unlikely.) Who knows? The point is, the lack of a response does not suddenly give you license to get on your soapbox and personalise what was otherwise a perfectly civil exchange. Moreover, I'm not quite sure how this fits in without your assertions that you merely respond to Clio's attacks first. Clio didn't say a single word to you, and yet you felt the need to comment on her personally. Be warned if you make those sorts of unprovoked personal comments again on the Ref Desk, then I will remove them per WP:NPA. Rockpocket 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood loud and clear. You obviously had no intention of keeping your word, and you certainly aren't the least bit unbiased. Surprisingly, though, I still intend to keep mine. Goodbye Rockpocket. Lewis 01:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If you think that somehow Clio is the one at fault in that exchange and, by me not "punishing" her that I am being biased, then you really need to break all contact with her. Incidently, you may be aware that there are accusations that you are operating a sockpuppet account: Eptypes (talk · contribs). I sincerely hope this is not the case and I find it hard to believe someone of your obvious intelligence would be so stupid as to operate a sockpuppet. So i'm not sold on the idea myself, but the co-incidences are nevertheless striking. It will be resolved soon enough, however, as Eptypes is busy making his own case for a checkuser. Rockpocket 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Where are these accusations? The fact that you'd give them any credence whatsoever is rather disappointing, and further proof that like so many, you too doubt my sincerity, and completely misunderstand my intentions. Lewis 10:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I just told you "i'm not sold on the idea myself" and "I find it hard to believe someone of your obvious intelligence would be so stupid as to operate a sockpuppet", and I have told others who have suggested it that I think it "seems unlikely". Quite how does that indicate I give "credance" to the idea? It seems you will take any comment I make in a manner that suits your persecution complex, even when I'm defending you.
I actually mentioned it because I felt you would probably be in a position to rule yourself out. However, if you are going to use it against me as another example of bias, then you can deal with the ramifications of this yourself. Rockpocket 19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
We obviously have our differences, and yes, I do feel that your comments on both mine and Clio's talkpages were had a leaning of sympathy in her favour (as one example, when made it clear that you considered her source to me far more credible than mine). However aparently I had misread the above post as another of these cases, and I apologize for that.
Just one point I'd like to make though. I'd like you to understand the due diligence I excercized in making my post on the RefDesk. Perhaps it wasn't apparent, but I made very well sure to do so only after having made sure Clio had returned to Wikipedia and made further edits, and therefore had the opportunity to see my questions and ignore them. I'd just like to make sure you understand that they weren't done out of mere impatience, but rather with the knowledge that my challenges were being ignored.
As hard as I try, I just can't seem to grasp just what the guidelines are and when they're enforced vs. when they're not. For example, entire arguments of mine have been deleted because they lacked "sources" and were merely the opinions of a "non-expert". In Clio's post I saw precisely the same thing, and all things being equal (which clearly they are not!) just like mine, her posts should require sources as well, or, at the very least, she should label them as conjecture, as I ALWAYS do when providing conjecture. That's another area of bias I just don't get, amongst many, many more, which for the sake of peace, I'll just forgive and forget, as apparently she's decided to leave. Lewis 21:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
On the particular incident you refer to, my comments were leaning in her favour. Did believe her source to be credible - it was an academically sourced monograph after all - whereas yours was the personal website of some MP and a general review on the interpreation of historical events. You have to understand that what is correct doesn't really matter to me in these situations, since that is subjective. I'm much more interested in seeing info that has reliable verification. I believe she provided that, you didn't, and I told both of you as much. I don't have any inherent personal bias for Clio and against you, but I'm not about to treat everything from either of you as equally valid on principle. I don't favour any individual, I favour the actions of individuals on a case by case basis. I told you I would support a move to introduce a strict adherence to sources. I expect Clio would oppose that and so, in that situation, I would be favoring your position over hers. I often disagree with StuRat on issues, but that does not mean I am biased against him. Sometimes StuRat proposes something that I do agree with and I am happy to support that, since its the proposals, not the person, that i'm interested in. So we do have our differences, but that does not mean that I am biased. See also WP:JACK.
I do appreciate that you probably had waited until you knew Clio has seen those comments. However, just read back your comments for a second, you said you waited until she had "had the opportunity to see my questions and ignore them." So what if she did? I read lots of comments and decline to respond to them, as does everyone else. You can't force Clio to respond to you and she has clearly decided that she does not wish to. What is there to be gained by further commenting on her? Everyone can read her comments and read request. They can make their own mind up as to whether to believe her in the absence of sources. You don't need to denegrate her for not providing sources, because we can all see that she hasn't. So we all conclude that the purpose was to vent personal frustration at Clio, and that is not acceptable.
I'm sorry of your posts we deleted because they lacked sources. According to our guidelines that should not happen, and I'm surprised it did with StuRat's policing of "deletionism". Because someone else doesn't adhere to the guidelines does not mean you yourself shouldn't, but neither should it mean you are censured. If someone deletes your post only because it is unsourced, then let me know and I will investigate. I note you said "arguments", though, since the Ref Desk is not for arguing, that may be an indication that there was more to the issue than a lack of sources.
The simplest resolution here is simply to avoid reference to Clio completely. There is no good reason, I can see, why you need to refer to her other than to request a source. If she declines to provide one then too bad. Move on. You can write what you wish in response to any question, just do it entirely independent of Clio. She is ignoring you, if you do the same of her then life will be much easier for us all.
Finally, Clio reconsidered her decision to leave, so while I still encourage you to forgive and forget, you are going to have to continue to co-exist with her. Rockpocket 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cilo_the_Muse.2C_Hipocrite.2C_Rockpocket.2C_StuRat.2C_Loomis51.2C_A.Z._.26_me_Eptypes

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cilo_the_Muse.2C_Hipocrite.2C_Rockpocket.2C_StuRat.2C_Loomis51.2C_A.Z._.26_me_Eptypes. --Eptypes 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Please refrain from making personal attacks on other users, as you did at User talk:Clio the Muse. Comment on the content of the article, not other users. If you really feel you have to verbally spar, email them, but keep non-encyclopedia talk off the wiki as much as you can. Thanks, David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough

Loomis. Despite all the discussion we have had about depersonalizing your interactions with Clio, and avoiding references to her as much as possible, you have contributed nothing to this project in the last 5 days but personally harangue Clio when she has made it abundantly clear she does not welcome it.

I'm completely perplexed at how someone who claims to have a J.D. can be so utterly oblivious to the inappropriateness of this behaviour, bearing in mind that you were indef blocked for the very same reason. I offered you a lifeline here on certain, very simple conditions and you have simply been unable or unwilling to adhere to those. As I told you then, while I was willing to unblock you, I cannot influence the actions of other editors and admins. Your last comment was the final straw for a number of other editors and there is a strong argument being made for an immediate reinstatement for your block.

So, the time for deals is past, you had the chance and you blew it. If you want to remain an contributor to Wikipedia this is what will happen: You will cease and desist from any communication with Clio whatsoever. If you choose to respond the same question as her, or write in the same article, you will do so without any reference, no matter how oblique to her or her answer. Indeed any reference to her here, or on Wikiversity, will result in a block. This is your last and only chance (and even then it may not fly with other admins, but I'll at least propose it). If you wish to write back bemoaning "how unfair" everyone is being to you then do so, but it will fall on deaf ears and you will get no response. It may be unfair, but such is life. The bottom line is that Clio is widely considered a useful, productive and polite editor, while you are widely considered disruptive and borderline obsessive with regards to her. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is the reality of how the community at large sees your situation.

What will happen is that you will follow these conditions or you will be indef blocked again without any warning. That is the only response you will get from me henceforth. Take it or leave it, your choice. Rockpocket 08:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Loomis, I came by here to reinstate the indefinite block I gave you last time. But, I see Rockpocket is already addressing the issue. I can't say I agree with his "one last chance" proposal because you already had, and blew, a last chance. But, if you're willing to edit under the conditions he described above there's probably no real reason to show you the door now, so I will let it slide. But, be warned, if I see that you're stirring up trouble instead of contributing usefully, I'm likely to block you again whether or not you've followed the conditions outlined above. I think your best bet would be to start over with a new account if you actually want to contribute, and leave all the drama associated with "Loomis51" behind you. Of course, if you were to create a new account and use it instead to continue your harassment of Clio, this will be quite obvious and both accounts will be blocked without further ado. To repeat what's said above, it's your choice. Be useful or be shown the door. Friday (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You're both right in the sense that enough is enough. If you haven't noticed, I've hardly contributed a thing to the RefDesk in quite a while. If you also haven't noticed, many other valuable editors who used to contribute regularly just, say, a year ago, are now long gone. I suppose I was left the only one to hold the fort. It's now clear, however, that you simply don't appreciate what's happening here, and no matter how hard I try, you never will.
I know this will be futile, but I'll explain how I see things one last time: The Humanities RefDesk used to be a wonderful place to learn. OPs would ask questions, and a decent variety of intellectuals would put in their admittedly POV two-cents, with the result of providing the OP with a variety of differing POV answers, which is basically the closest one can get to an NPOV answer to any "humanities" related topic. This was the Humanities RefDesk I fell in love with.
Now, however, it's pretty much dominated by one supposed omniscient Cambridge Phd. One who verbally abuses other editors in the cruelest and most sadistic of manners due to the "folly" she percieves in their contributions (while the admins conveniently turn a blind eye). One who is incapable of those all-too-human facets known as humilty and fallability. This editor proceeds upon handing down, as if from above, her more-often-than-not flawed, revisionist, biased, and downright incorrect responses (and from my own ethnic POV, extremely offensive and insulting to the memory of my family) to historical questions. When these responses are succesfully challenged, she is incapable of responding in a civil manner (not just to me) and lowering herself to "stand corrected".
These, to me, are not the makings of a RefDesk editor, nor a proper historian.
But once again, you're right. Enough is enough. I've spent far too much time and effort on this. If you'd indeed prefer the Humanities RefDesk to degenerate into a ClioBlog, then that last obstacle you've been facing, little old Loomis51, has given up. I fought the good fight, and I'm damned proud of it. This, to me, is truly a sad day for Wikipedia.
This is no grand exit, no demand to be blocked, nothing melodramatic like that. I still love Wikipedia and its articles. Unfortunately that once great Humanities RefDesk that I couldn't wait to come to visit upon returning home from work, in order to learn new things, and (hopefully) return the favour by sharing whatever I know with others, is no longer.
I'm not really sure what all those nonsensical "conditions" you noted above were, nor did I pay much attention to them. Whether my words above are some sort of "breach" of those conditions, I have no idea, nor do I care.
I just can't help but find it funny that you've extended your jurisdiction to Wikiversity. What's next? If you can somehow hack into my Yahoo account, will my emails now be scrutinized for any anti-Clio content? How about MSN? Is it ok if I call Stu up on the phone and speak "inappropriately" of her? lol (Not that either of us really cares about all this bullshit to actually talk on the phone about it, we have lives, you know! We've never even spoken on the phone, and interestingly, I know rather little about him except that he's apparently from Detroit and that we disagree on pretty much every issue except for the fact that Clio's a fraud! I'm actually rather curious. I've often wondered if Stu is perhaps some obese Asian guy, some skinny Black guy, some white senior citizen, or whatever!)
If you want to block me, then block me. If you don't, then don't. It's all so obviously arbitrary that I really don't give a shit at this point what you do. All you should know is that I'm just pretty much fed up with the whole RefDesk farce, and I don't really see myself engaging in it in any way any time soon. I have absolutely no intention of any further "Doctor Anastasia" bashing, as like I said, it's futile. If you don't believe me, then block me. If not, then don't. Do as you please.
Let me just mark this day, June 4th, 2007. Let's just see how the Humanities RefDesk looks in say, six months from now: December 4th, 2007. Will all be as is? Will any of my remarks ring any truer? Let's just see. In the meantime, adios muchachos!
Lewis BA, MBA, BCL, LLB.
Lewis 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that this total degenaration of the reference desk is Clio's fault, unless she manipulated all of those other editors into making the ridiculous guidelines, deleting stuff over and over again, censoring things that they don't like, etc. The reference desk is surely being undermined for a long time now, but it doesn't really matter if Clio thinks the reference desk is her blog, as long as we can still post unreferenced things like she does, express our POVs like she does, say wrong things like she does, assert unverifiable things like she does, and say that we disagree with what she said. The problem is that, somehow, a large group of people became convinced that her posts should be "protected", and that "the reference desk is not a chatroom", an obscure sentence that became official guideline and is used as a justification for deleting posts. Of course, to a lot of editors, Clio's posts are defined as non-chatroomish, while other posts are, and no-one can tell what is it that makes Clio's posts different. I speculate the editors themselves don't know, so they should just say "I like Clio, I dislike the other editors", or whatever other personal reason they have. A.Z. 01:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Very well said A.Z., I couldn't agree more. It's always been my position that in the various world crises, it isn't the masses who are the problem, it's only through their nutjob leaders who in turn only acquire their air of legitimacy from what I term the community of "left-wing western pseudo-intellectuals" who are the real source of the problem. For example in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I really don't blame my Palestinian cousins at all for their backward attitude, their ridiculous attitude that Israel is some sort of evil, imperialist, fascist, apartheid regime, and as such has no right to exist. It's not their fault that they have such a ridiculously hateful attitude toward Israel, it's the fault of their nutjob leaders who teach them to hate. But such nutjobs are a dime a dozen. The ultimate source of the air of legitimacy these nutjobs possess is afforded to them by that community of left-wing western pseudo-intellectuals I refer to. In turn these pseudo-intellectuals themselves are only afforded the authority they possess due to the fact that their glaring intellectual weaknesses are nicely covered up by their unusual talent to charismatically woo the masses into respecting their "authority" on whatever matter they choose to speak on. And please don't take me as claiming that they do so wittingly. On the contrary. They likely have absolutely no idea of the harm they're causing.
To sum it all up, the Empress has no clothes, people! It's so God-damned obvious and so God-damned frustrating that so few others have noticed, but the Empress has no clothes! Lewis 12:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Open Question: "Lewis Posesses an Almost Total Lack of Intellectual Comprehension". Personal Attack or Not?

Interesting.

I'm faced with something of a logical dilemma.

Perhaps some of you guys can help me out.

I've very recently been described as posessing "an almost total lack of intellectual comprehension".

These words, I would have thought, would be the very quintessence of a personal attack.

Of course as always, I could be wrong. Perhaps these words do not constitute a personal attack.

My question then is, are these words offensive or not?

If they are indeed offensive, and if all editors are meant to be treated equally, the only logical conclusion is that their author is in the wrong, and should be politely requested to refrain from using such language to describe another.

On the other hand, if describing another as posessing "an almost total lack of intellectual comprehension" is indeed not in any way offensive, then I suppose I should feel free to make the following statement without fear of reprimand: "Clio and Rockpocket clearly display an almost total lack of intellectual comprehension.

Once again, I ask this question as coldly and as dispassionately as possible. As such, I request that any and all responses be equally cold, logical, and dispassionate.

Mr. Lewis 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a more relevant question - Is there any purpose to your participation here other than trying to prolong a personal dispute? Why not let it go? Fighting is boring. Friday (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
How is taking offense to a completely brand new personal attack "prolong[ing] a personal dispute?" You say "enough". I couldn't agree more. I want this to end. I want ALL personal attacks to end. I think it's fair to say that I'm doing my part as it's been weeks since I've posted anything the least bit incivil. I've tried on many occasions to, as you put it, "let it go". And that's what I once again tried to do. Yet the pot-shots keep coming from the other side. What would you do in such a situation?
In any case, we're going off topic. I asked a cold, dispassionate, logical question, and all I want is a cold, dispassionate answer to it. I won't be distracted by emotionaly charged non-sequiturs.
Just in case the foregoing has caused any to lose sight of the original question, I'll repeat it:
Is the description of another user as "posess[ing] an almost total lack of intellectual comprehension" a personal attack or not?
Once again please, let's not dodge the question with personalized and emotionally driven non-sequiturs. Let's try to keep this as cold, dispassionate, depersonalized and logical as possible. Lewis 18:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Who's dodging it? We're tired of it. David D. (Talk) 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
My reply wasn't intended to be remotely emotional. Has someone been coming by your talk page to harass you? That would be a problem, if it were going on. However I see no evidence of this. In my experience, you give at least as good as you get, so I have little sympathy for your cries of "Oh no, somebody said something that wasn't nice!" Please, either contribute usefully to the project, or go away. Drama-seeking behavior is not welcome here. Friday (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So...

Were you planning to contribute anything to the project, or are you just going to try to troll on your talk page like you're doing above? If it's the latter, we can fulfill your apparent desire for a block and page protection.

Given that the remarks in question are some weeks old and were in response to your own extended history of personal attacks (which have continued), I would have thought you'd have the good sense to keep your head down. This is your last chance. Do something useful, or leave. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I attacked Clio in the past. I did the crime and I did the time. I was just curious why the same rule doesn't apply to others. Lewis 18:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough...is enough.

I have restored your previous indefinite block, and I am protecting this talk page.

That block had been lifted – extraordinarily generously – by Rockpocket under some straightforward conditions:

"You will cease and desist from any communication with Clio whatsoever. If you choose to respond the same question as her, or write in the same article, you will do so without any reference, no matter how oblique to her or her answer. Indeed any reference to her here, or on Wikiversity, will result in a block."

You have violated those terms, out of some desire to make a point. Indeed, your only contributions to Wikipedia for the better part of a month have been part of your ongoing feud with Clio.

Your soapbox has been removed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)