Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blaxthos (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 28 October 2006 (RfARB on Conduct). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User Talk:Ramsquire/Archive 1

Hal Turner

How can you possibly remove a statement that Hal Turner is outlandishly racist? His own website is ample testament to that. It is so undeniable that I cannot fathom your motive for removing the statement.

What on earth is going on in your head to justify your bizarre editing???

I did not attack you personally. His own words on his own website are a primary source. I cannot imagine a more reliable indicator of his position on racial issues. His own statements are certainly more reliable than any secondary reporting from a newspaper or third party.

It is not original research to describe his words as racist. It is accurately summarizing his incessant, ad hominem attacks based on race alone. This is *not* research. It is simply description.

Andreasegde

Are you both serious? It has shocked me. You say about me: "Your hero"?, and "Conspiracy nut"? This is beyond the pale, and I feel affronted by those comments. RPJ has never attacked me (not yet, anyway; but probably because I am neutral) but you both have. Do you not feel that you have gone too far? I will not hold my breath for an apology. andreasegde 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your reply. My point is this: Why can you all not work together? It´s a dictionary, is it not? Name-calling and silly insults (RPJ, Gamaliel, or anybody else for that matter) is not the way to work together. I have defended RPJ, and I have also worked (cordially) with Gamaliel on "The rifle" page. What does that make me? (Don´t answer that one :))

I used to believe Oswald did it, then I didn´t, then I did, then I didn´t.... so I became neutral about the whole confusing mess before I went bananas (laugh...)

I still believe that being neutral is the only way to go forward. Put both points together and let the reader decide. If we continue to squabble we will only confuse the people that want some seriously cited information, from a wonderful project like Misplaced Pages. C´mon; agree to disagree. There is enough Internet space for everybody to cite their sources.

Have fun. andreasegde 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ramsquire. My intentions were as you read them. If I had read the collection of insults that have been (supposedly) thrown around, I would have written something else. I can only go on what is presented, can I not? I would have thought one could archive insults and attacks, so as to have some form of defence in case of disagrement, and not delete them. Might be a good idea, huh?

Anyway; I have agreed with RPJ about a quote from LBJ, (see talk page) but I disagreed with him about a right-wing conspiracy piece. So there you go... now my hat is in the ring.

I do think RPJ has some valid points about people deleting stuff because they disagree with it. It´s not very Wiki, and the page is getting to be "I´ll let you put your bit in if I can put mine in." Maybe we have to agree (good grief - is it possible?) about the basic rules and layout of the page. I´d throw these in, for what they are worth:

1. No personal name-calling. 2. No theories without citations. 3. Both sides must be presented. Take out "Response" and merge it into "One-shooter".

There you go, you can now kick me where it hurts (Ouch!) if that´s not sensible. andreasegde 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"There are still a good number of comments by you attacking the credibility of users who disagree with your point of view." Ramsquire 23:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don´t get this at all. Comments by me attacking who´s credibility, exactly? Can you explain this? andreasegde 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now... silly me. I am laughing about it though, because you are writing to each other on MY page. Give me a break, guys... (laugh...) andreasegde 06:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the very nice message, Ramsquire. Nice one. I only said I would be irritated if I wasn´t laughing so much. It was meant as a silly joke. (It´s a bit like saying, "I would kill that woman if I didn´t love her so much..."

Anyway; I´ve been chopping a few bits out of the page, and I wondered what you thought. I always leave a message on the talk page in advance. Have fun. andreasegde 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC - Clay Shaw

Got your message. I'm no expert on Shaw, but I'll give it a glance. Thanks Dubc0724 02:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; got your message as well. I put my answer on the Clay Shaw discussion page. andreasegde 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oswald page

I was totally confused about the Oswald page, and I "bit the bullet" before I understood what was going on. Thank you, Sherlock Ramsquire! I would give you a Barnstar, but I don´t know how to... andreasegde 21:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Earlene Roberts

This is a problem, because Gamaliel said her testimony - seeing a police car etc. - was in question (which I agreed with at the time) but SBHarris thinks her testimony about seeing Oswald at the bus stop should be included. She was blind in one eye. If seeing Oswald "walking fast - almost running" - into the house - is not to be included, then why should her testimony about seeing him across the street from the house (when she was watching the TV report about Kennedy) be included without a comment? Interesting... andreasegde 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Roberts talked about the police car (in her WC testimony) but did not mention the bus stop. What should go in? andreasegde 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the reply.

I think she is right about Oswald ""walking fast - almost running", (which was deleted) but I agree with Gamaliel about the police car. She could have been confused about the number of the police car (so she admitted) as she was watching TV at the time, and police cars had turned up at other times, and had used the same "Pip-Pip" car-honking thing. But I can find no reason to include that she saw Oswald at the bus stop across the street. (She never mentioned it in her WC testimony.)

This is crucial. We can not include some of her evidence, and then discount other bits of it, without a comment. andreasegde 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: How do I create an archive?

I've been trying to clean up my talk page so that only recent discussion appear on it, however, I don't know how to archive a previous discussion. Please help. You can respond here or on my talk page, whichever is more convenient. Ramsquire 23:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I've answered your Help Desk question as follows, since you asked to have it answered on your talk page too:

You can create a subpage of your usertalk that's something like User_talk:Ramsquire/Archive and copy the content from your talk page that you want to archive, or there's probably some way to do it with a bot, but I'm not really familiar with bots. I'll leave a note on your talk page too, that I answered. —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

No, you can discuss it on talk pages, of those who either support or oppose you. One of the main concerns on RfA, is that a user who requests adminship has a sumwhat large amount of experience. You have in fact been around since 2004, but your edit count and contributions do not reflect your time on Misplaced Pages. Also note, I dont speak for everyone. You seem to be a perfectly good editor, but you should look into contributing to other areas on Misplaced Pages. Such as WP:AfD, and other xfd's, as well as WP:AN and WP:ANI. Also, try reviewing the standards page. I might also suggest that you withdraw your nomination, you have a very slim chance. Sorry, and I will support another nomination for you in a few months down the road if you continue on the same path you are on. Keep up the good work. SynergeticMaggot 23:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To withdraw, just specify you wish to do so on your RfA. Either a crat will remove it, or an experienced admin will remove it. I understand your dissapointment, I just had an RfA of my own fail. If you need any advice in the future, please contact me. RfA's can either make or break you. Don't let this discourage you. SynergeticMaggot 23:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now closed your RfA. Please look it over and (Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ramsquire) and take notice of any comments made before re-nominating yourself or accepting a nom. My talk page is still open to you if you have any further questions. SynergeticMaggot 23:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's good that you were bold by requesting adminship. However, edit count is an important factor in many RfA voters' decisions. I would suggest that you set a goal for yourself, depending on how much time you can spend on Misplaced Pages. (I try to make 50 edits a day, but you can set your own goals.) --Gray Porpoise 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We try not to measure people by raw numbers of edit counts, but some people still do that. See Misplaced Pages:Editcountitis. --Gray Porpoise 00:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You work well as a Wikipedian. I will support you with just a bit more work. --Gray Porpoise 01:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Awww, so sorry your RfA failed! Your edits, as I said in my "neutral" vote, are very high quality, but many users believe that a bare minimum of 1,000 to 2,000 edits are necessary to establish an editor's reputation. I really do think you're a great editor, though, and I'll support you in a few months. Heck, when you're ready, I'll even nominate you myself. :) Until then, happy editing, and remember that you can drop me a line if you ever need anything! Srose (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson (attorney)

Sorry if I came across as blunt. My concerns are two:

1) As I assume you're aware, video gaming websites or magazines are not acceptable sources for the article. Even if we were to cite the legal document itself (which, to be honest, I don't actually know how to do), we would still have to note where we found the document. Unless we actually have a copy of the document in our own hands, it would seem that we would have to cite the website, which is probably unacceptable.

2) This one is a bit more subtle. One could argue, and I often do, that the incident's lack of mainstream news coverage means that the incident is not notable enough to be included in the article. Of course, this occasionally leads to the problem of unresolved plot lines, if you will, such as the Florida Bar lawsuit.

These are both grey areas regarding our policy on the article, and I thought I'd see if you had anything to add to the conversation before I ask User:Michael Snow, who should be able to clear up the concerns. Thanx! --Maxamegalon2000 22:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You got your wish

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Great Liberal Backlash of 2003 (second nomination) Morton devonshire 02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to your post

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with this edit-->"And how can you say with such certainty that Monroe was not one of his affairs?"<-- I think it is a reasonable question. Did you read the post I was responding to? Lam dismissed the possibility out of hand, when there are, IMO, many credible witnesses to the contrary. Perhaps the 2d edit in question was a bit harsh, but accurate-- admissions by the people involved aren't a credible enough source for Rjensen. Achilles2006 05:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your msg on AIV

Hi, I blocked 207.63.191.182; however, he seems to have stopped vandalising almost 4 hours ago. Why did you report him now? Am I missing something? TIA, --Gurubrahma 17:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Users

Thanks, Ramsquire. I appreciate your advice. Now... how can I rephrase it? Too many bosses and not enough workers? Too many white-collar workers and not enough blue? I´ll change my original contribution, BTW. Thanks again. P.S. Got it. Critics and contributors... andreasegde 17:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Good grief, you took me at my word about those citations on the Theories page! Good for you, Ramsquire. Let´s see what happens... andreasegde 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about editing it, but I can´t help myself sometimes. I did it to another user - fixed a link about his old school - and he later thanked me, thank goodness. Ten points to you, because you genuinely shocked me with the first line of your message! (Ouch!) (P:S. Think the work that you are doing on the Kennedy pages is going really well.) andreasegde 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Speechless

I am truly speechless (even though I can still write...) I really don´t know what to say. I thank you for giving me one of the greatest compliments that I have ever had. I will think about it, but my head is spinning at the moment. I thank you again, Ramsquire. andreasegde 21:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger Wilco! Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian

Oh yes indeedy, The Guardian is right up there with The Times, and is a very well respected paper. (It´s slightly conservative.) The Independent and The Daily Telegraph are also well-respected. The papers that are like The National Enquirer are The Sun, The Daily Miror and The News of the World. (The last one has headlines like "Vicar in sex probe shocker...")

Try these:

To compare I´ll give you these as well :

Happy reading. andreasegde 09:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My John F. Kennedy Photograph

I see now in the discussion section of the JFK page that there was already another who thought that "lead" photo of JFK was unworthy of being in the article, please let it be known that my uncle's photo was not placed there to "beat" anyone for a change, it was only after I saw that unflattering and "doctored" photograph, that I remembered there were at least three or four photographic shots that my uncle Malachi took of the late President that would serve the encyclopedic article on him far better than the distorted image that someone had placed as the header photograph, which I found to be an offense to JFK's memory.

The one I published to replace it was one which showed the President as we who were alive remember him (and in true colour), and shows to those not yet born, his fair continence and a view... a look at him as he really was for all to cherish and remember. A charismatic leader loved around the free world, the great man we lost that awful day in Dallas, only a few weeks later. (cathytreks 21:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

+cat

• I tried but they want to delete than one too ! Category:Human extinction best to go from neutral to KEEP so the list doesn't disappear. Thanks MapleTree 23:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Luna Santin

DVD R W deleted the page, not me. Anyway, I will speedy close the AfD, so you don't have anything to worry about. --Nishkid64 20:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Clay Shaw

Why don't you have an email address set up? I have something you might like to read. --Ali'i 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't list my email because I don't like receiving spam, which is always a danger in forums like this. Just give me a link to the info if you have one. Ramsquire 20:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... there is no link. If I get the time, I'll just add it later. Thanks. --Ali'i 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

namespace violation

I have moved Archive of previous nomination to User:Ramsquire/Archive of previous nomination. -- RHaworth 22:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

hmmm... could you move Archived copy of First RfA to be in your userspace, and then tag the misplaced article as {{db-empty}} for speedy deletion? Thanks. bikeable (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire - I have changed the link to your first RfA to the actual archived version. --Alex (Talk) 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity! Redux 17:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about

You left a message about a "slight" by one of the editors. Why did you leave me such a message?

RPJ 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What is this damning evidence?

Ramsquire writes:

My most inspiring, and tiring, work at Misplaced Pages has been in the JFK articles. I'd like to thank Oliver Stone for getting me interested in the subject. However, I have been disappointed that most of his most damning evidence in the film, is quickly shown to be false or misleading upon a very cursory review of the actual evidence."

What is the "most damning evidence?" And how did you find the "actual evidence?"

RPJ 06:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a good faith question? When I say "his most damning evidence in the film", I am speaking only of what initially led me to believe that Oliver Stone's version of the assassination was correct. Ramsquire 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is a good faith question. What exactly is film's "most damning evidence?" How did you find out that this "most damning evidence" was "false or misleading?"

RPJ 08:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I just didn't feel like getting baited into something, that will be thrown up on the talk pages later as "evidence" of some improper motive behind my editing. But to answer your question, after watching JFK, I was convinced there was a conspiracy involving the CIA, Clay Shaw, and David Ferrie. I was convinced by the following scenes in the movie:

• The "magic bullet" argument in the courtroom.
• David Ferrie admitting that Garrison was on the right track.
• Clay Shaw admitting the alias of Bertrand.
• And the entire Mr. X scene.

Upon further research, I found that there is a scenario for one shot to cause all the damage to Kennedy and Connelly; Ferrie never admitted anything of the sort per Garrison's own aides; Shaw probably never admitted an alias per the hearing, (you can get the transcript online), and Mr. X is actually Prouty, who has spouted off on some racists, and other far out theories. Not to mention, that Mr. X, also got some facts wrong, like the phones being out in DC after the assassination.

Let me once again say, I am open to the possibility that Oswald had help, but I just don't see any compelling evidence of it. However, as much as you don't want to believe me, the major problem I have with some of your additions is the reliability of yours source, not with the content.

Ramsquire 16:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Thanks for the Welcome. I appreciate the links, however I am mostly going to use the "Ignore all rules" policy as cited on your user page. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

Fox News

"I will assume good faith and participate _in this malformed RfC_" - This doesn't seem very WP:AGF :-( It didn't seem to me that there WAS consensus on the wording of the intro, although there was consensus that it should be included in the intro. My objection is NOT that I don't think there is a lot of criticism out there. My objection is only that I don't think the criticism is being addressed NPOV. My impression was that there was some agreement among the editors that some better wording could be hashed out. (also, since AuburnPilot doesn't want to be involved anymore, could you make a statement under "Statements by editors previously involved in dispute" to represent the other side?) Cbuhl79 20:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

RE:Malformed - Sorry, I hadn't yet placed it on the RfC page because I was still trying to find where the original RfC had been placed. I've since added it, and afaik, I've followed proper procedures. "Do not post an RfC before working towards a resolution with other article contributors first." - there had already been signficant discussion about the wording of the introduction. Cbuhl79 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

bait

hi,

my heartfelt thanks to all who participated included you as well.  ;-) AuburnPilot got a special acknowledgement because I actually went to Auburn University back in the day. if i knew what ramsquire was and it had some personal connection to my life, you would have gotten the same.

sorry to possibly overstep boundaries, but i wanted to counsel caution in taking the bait and participating in the fox news channel RFC. by everyone's judgement, it is simply this guy being difficult. it rarely behooves one to participatin in such discussions, and though i applaud your continued willingnes to asume good faith, it could be possible that he's only trying to provoke someone in the hopes that they will end up making themselves look foolish.

I could be completely wrong about motives, and this isn't an accusation. I just think from a pragmatic standpoint further discussion with the individual is pointless. Reasoning can be seen in the final part of the original RFC...

It should be noted (AGF notwithstanding) that some editors seem to be set on finding new objections when the old ones are satisfied (first, there are unsourced generalizations in the intro; then specific citations shouldldn't be in the intro; now, weasle words are the problem) -- almost like the goal is specifically to keep it out of the intro by using whatever means necessary. I don't think consensus requires 100% agreememnt, especially when evaluating those who find new objections when it serves their purpose. Sorry to fall off the good faith bandwagon, but it's hard to keep the faith when it appears the intent is to construct further obstacles instead of finding solutions to existing issues.

— /Blaxthos 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

FNC

That's why I was trying to get an agreement to agree to the result, before the vote, so it would definitely settle it. If it came back overwhelmingly in your favour and he still disagreed, you'd have reason to get admins involved. The problem is that consensus was built over time and over several issues at the same time, so, in his eyes, it wasn't completely beyond doubt (you clearly disagree). I thought a vote would help - if you think it has no merit, ignore the idea. But getting into a revert-war doesn't seem to be a very good solution.Trebor 18:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Trebor 18:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Clay Shaw article - Homosexuals Killing Kennedy?

Thank you for adding a citation. I think I still have a problem with the wording of the sentence. It reads as if the alleged conspirators' homosexuality was part of the reason for the conspiracy. The way "homosexuals" is lumped in alongside "right-wing extremists" and "Cuban exiles" gives homosexuals a common bond/unified reason to kill JFK that I don't really think existed the way it may have for Cubans or right-wingers. I believe Garrison believed that some of the conspirators may have been homosexuals. I also believe that this sentence is worded so as to make Garrison look like the biggest possible kook. (Which, admittedly, isn't that hard). Your thoughts? Dubc0724 16:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It really isn't my intention to do that. Feel free to make a more neutral edit if you feel I crossed the line. I did a peer review on the article requesting if it seems biased, and no one found it did. However, all suggestions to improve the article are welcome. Ramsquire 18:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to point fingers at you or anyone else in particular. I'll see if I can think of another way to reword the sentence without changing its fundamental meaning. Thanks Dubc0724 18:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Request for Arbitration

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration. You are either an editor with which I am in direct dispute, or an editor who has been involved in the discussion.

Good Faith

Thank you for your continued efforts to assume good faith.

Obviously, I felt that the closing of the RfC was premature (From WP:RFC "After all parties agree the issue has been resolved, strike it from the listing."), but made a good faith effort to discuss my concerns by opening a new RfC. I would have preferred to actually continue to discuss the issue, but I feel that the other editors were trying to stifle discussion entirely from this moment on.

I've been accused of trying to keep the information out of the article, despite the fact that I've agreed numerous times to inclusions of the information, and have even made edits to add information about Fox News' bias (including edits, not deletes, to the introduction).

I have also been accused of "failing to abide by an RfC", but I don't think that there is any policy that states that RfCs are binding, are final, preclude ANY further discussion, or are the final step to resolving disputes. Since I felt that there were WP:NPOV issues, and since WP:CONSENSUS states that consensus cannot be used to violate WP:NPOV, I wanted to continue discussion. As you have seen, I have made very few actual edits to the page about the specific issue (even though I've been accussed of violating WP:3RR).

I opened the arbitration primarily because I felt that the other editors (primarily Blaxthos) involved were making these (and other) false accusations against me to any other editors involved in order to discredit my arguments. Note that other editors were willing to discuss the issue, and that previously uninvolved editors who read the entire discussion believed that I was acting in good faith and that I only wanted to discuss the issue. I wanted a neutral party who would not be swayed by nothing more than accusations to decide whether or not I had been committing violations.

All that being said I will seriously consider your request to drop the RfARB. I was (and am) quite willing to live with versions of the article that were not exactly how I would have written them, but I feel that the other editors involved are making unfounded accusations and are totally committed to keeping my input out of the article. Would you be able to suggest other remedies to deal with this? Cbuhl79 17:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the first part of what you need to do is accept that consensus has been reached in regards to the intro. I understand you disagree with what the consensus did because you see it as violating NPOV. But considering editors who were on opposite sides of the discussion agree that it is over, and others (from both sides) refuse to even re-visit the issue after being made aware of the continuing discussion points to the fact that consensus has been reached. If those editors felt otherwise, they would have made their opinions known. It need not be 100%. Once Gamaliel and Blaxthos endorsed the current version, that is the point where consensus had been reached.

As for your reputation, you've harmed it more by your repeated insistence on posting the same thing over and over again, than if you had simply said "I disagree with the consensus", and moved on. That being said, consensus can change, so keep on editing and maybe at some point, consensus will change. But for now, just keep looking for weasel words as you see them, place {{Who}} tags on them and listen to other editors responses.

Ramsquire 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is intended for Cbuhl79, not Ramsquire. Let me jump in right here and clarify a few points.

1. The work towards a commonly acceptable intro was ongoing for almost two weeks before you jumped in. Many editors had already brought up the points you attempted to assert. The reasoning was clearly discussed and explanations for each choice the group made is clear in the previous pages of discussion (what content went in intro, proper wording, etc.).
2. Every other editor showed a willingness to give as well as take, and incorporoated others' ideas into their suggestions. Instead of doing the same, you kept repeating the same phrase over and over, asserting why you are right (when, in fact, I can find no other forum (in 2 RFC's, 1 RfARB, policy talk pages, article talk pages, and personal talk pages) where anyone but you agrees with your reasoning). Which leads me to...
3. Unwillingness to listen to anyone else. I think this is the fundamental root cause of your current woes. Every time someone has tried to explain where your reasoning is flawed (for example, ignoring the word "often" or "usually" in the policy you repeat over and over) you simply ignore them and escallate the issue or attempt to find someone ELSE to bolster your position (and the cycle is repeated).
4. Wikilawyering and gaming the system -- both of these are clearly discussed (WP:POINT in particular). It is absolutely unethical and insulting to other editors to try and find new ways to effect the same change. Call it what you want, but you've tried for three weeks to get the same result; every time several people would show how you're misinterpreting/misusing policy, you'd find another policy to try and use.
5. Falsified claims and accusations -- no one that I have seen has issued any personal attack against you.
6. Bad faith -- re-issuing RfC's (even if using wikilawyered policies) on issues just decided is completely insulting to the wikipedia process as well as your fellow editors. Calling for Arbitration on something like this is mindboggling, as noted by every other editor as well as the ArbCom.
7. Discussion -- We weren't trying to "stifle" further discussion, however it is accepted wisdom (by everyone BUT you) that your logic is flawed. When we tried to explain why, you simply ignore us and assume we're wrong. There is no point in continued discussion because (1) the same issues/reasons have been discussed previously; and (2) there is no possible way your position will overcome the consensus (because you're the only one!). It should be noted that there is a complete consensus (excluding you) about there being a consensus on the issue as well.

Some policies you should read (emphasis added):

However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Misplaced Pages's consensus practice.

— WP:CONSENSUS

In the case of a small group of editors who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a larger group of editors, it is worth considering that they may be mistaken.

— WP:CONSENSUS

It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

— WP:NPOV

Some specific exceptions that may need calling out: When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify.

— WP:WEASEL

Gaming the system is the use of Misplaced Pages rules to thwart Misplaced Pages policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption...

— WP:POINT

If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process. The clause is designed to prevent editors from using wikipedia policies and guidelines as a filibuster.

— WP:SNOW

The snowball test: If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.

— WP:SNOW

All these policies are directly applicable to your reasoning or your behavior. Hopefully this will help you understand why you've encountered as much resistance as you have. In either case, the only thing you've accomplished is to garner a reputation that I would characterize as undesireable.  :-( /Blaxthos 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Blaxthos, unlike Ramsquire, you have consistently acted in arrogance and explicitly in bad faith, which is one of the main reasons that I have continued this for so long. Your first excuse for acting in bad faith was that I was attempting to keep the item out of the intro by any means necessary, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Ever since then, you have been rude and arrogant in constantly pointing out what you believe I have done wrong. Your behavior was the primary reason I submitted an RfARB, it may not have been the appopriate place to seek remedy, but your comment here leaves me less inclined to consider Ramsquire's request, and leaves me more inclined to continue to seek remedies. Cbuhl79 20:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RfARB on Conduct

Hey Ramsquire,

I'm initiating a request for arbitration regarding cbuhl79's conduct. I listed you as a "witness or interested party", and I would appreciate it if you could relate your experiences and thoughts. Thanks! /Blaxthos 17:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)