Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/JDR

For dispute with Lord Kenneth see Scientific Skepticism. For dispute with Exploding Boy see Topics in Sexuality.

scientific skepticism

I've tried dealing with this person. He refuses to mediate, and says he will keep editing my reverts from his POV edits in scientific skepticism "until it stops".

His additions are like going into the Earth section and saying "some people, however, believe the world is flat". Just because a small minority of quacks and pseudoscience peddlers criticize those who expose their claims does not warrents a "critics" section.

It's obvious he does't understand skepticism, either. Sure, skeptics may disbelieve in a new phenomenon when they hear about it (hey, it's skepticism!) but they'll believe in the face of evidence.

To criticize scientific skeptics is to criticize science and the data gathering process itself. Quackery and pseudoscience DO NOT deserve "equal time". Well-established, scientific facts do. - Lord Kenneth 20:07, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

This page is a biased mess, so the person you are disputing with could well have a point. It starts out by saying "skeptics do not rely on faith". Is this intended as a definition--in which case we could surely argue the question of whether James Randi is a skeptic--or a factual claim? If it is the latter, I think it is plainly false, on Humean grounds if no other, but in fact many soi-disant skeptics seem to adhere to their views in a quasi-religious way, and to be relying very much on some kind of underlying metaphysical view which one could certainly say is a matter of faith.

Next, it conflates skepticism with scientific method; there is some justification for this but there are many, many caveats, and it seems like a naive position to adopt in terms of the philosophy of science.

It makes factual claims which fail the NPOV test. The question of ESP has not been settled against; it is still being hotly debated (probably because it is, in fact, more a matter of faith than of science.) While creationism is obviously very dicey, it can hardly be said that Last Thursdayism has been refuted, because it is non-falsifiable. An entire book was written by a respectable scientist in the nineteenth century arguing for it. As for dowsing, I don't know, but judging by the quality of this page I am not inclined to take your word for it.

It claims that "scientific skepticism is a part of science itself". Are the methods of science themselves a part of science? It's hard to see how they can be validated by the means of science without circularity, which is the Humean problem again. The claim that black holes or hypnotism are merely provisional raises the question of what standard we need to reach before something becomes non-provisional, but it sounds suspiciously as if the author is ignorant of just how strong the evidence is (in the case of hypnotism, conclusive, in the case of black holes, very strong.)

This article is a bad one, and I suggest Lord Kenneth should climb down from his high horse and see if he can come to terms with whoever it is who is telling him that. I'm afraid they are right, Lord Kenneth. Gene Ward Smith 06:56, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Since it's obvious you barely understand science and scientific skepticism, it looks like I'll have to educate you! First of all, skeptics, as per the definition of scientific skeptics, DO NOT rely on faith. James Randi is obviously a skeptic since he does not rely on faith. Skepticism IS a part of science. Do scientists adopt new positions without evidence-- that is to say, scientists being unscientific, or do they test new hypothesises and experiment before coming to a conclusion? The answer to that is rather obvious.

Reading the contributions of both you and Reddi does not leave me very sanguine about the educational attainments of either of you. Why don't you lay your cards on the table and tell us what your qualifications are for educating the already educated? What degrees do you hold, for instance? What subjects would you claim to have a good understanding of, and how did you arrive at it? I suggest you not get into a pissing war with me over who knows more science, but if you must, have it. Gene Ward Smith

Uh, I can't see why it matters. Wikipedia does not require you to have a degree in something-- only knowledge in it. I, as a skeptic, am posting about what I know about scientific skepticism. - Lord Kenneth 01:26, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

If you propose to claim I barely know any science, when in fact I know a great deal about science and the philosophy of science and am the proud owner of a PhD, still running after thousands of miles and with years left on the warranty, it behoves you to make your own credentials, if any, known. Do you know any science worth mentioning, and if so, what? In any case, the fact that you are a professed skeptic (about the truth of which claim I am personally skeptical) does not mean you are best able to maintain NPOV and really suggests the opposite might be so. Would we allow Catholics to claim, as a fact, that the Pope is infallible? I think your views should not be given greater weight than other people's simply because you are a passionate believer in what you believe to be skepticism. Gene Ward Smith

And yet you think that scientists are completely split on the issue of psychic powers? Again, as mentioned before, you'll only find a few pseudoscientists "hotly debating" the matter. As for my POV, I am no more different than a Catholic writing about what a Catholic believes in. As a skeptic, I am writing about skepticism. It's kind of sad that you, with a Ph.D and all, apparently know very little about the philosophy of science-- skepticism is a part of the scientific method.

No matter how many degrees you have, nothing will change the fact that you are neither intelligent nor have a real understanding of the matters being discussed. - Lord Kenneth 05:57, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Your claim that Randi does not rely on faith seems to rely on faith; certainly, you give no evidence for it. Do you know any philosophy-do you, for instance, understand what I meant by "Humean grounds"? Sounding like a Holy Roller leaping up and shouting "Hallelujah!!" is not the way to convince the world you yourself are a skeptic, incidentally, if that is a consideration with you.

Randi relies on faith? Ha, where? You will need evidence to back that up, as I certainly have not seen any faith with him.

Your opinions are not facts merely because you hold them. Many other people would disagree with your assessment. Gene Ward Smith

"Opinions"? Again, I have seen no evidence to suggest Randi relies on faith, but I have seen many instances of a rational, scientific person. I don't care about "many other people" disagreeing with me. The vast majority of them seem to be people who think they can talk to dead people (or at least suggest they do). - Lord Kenneth 02:25, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence to show he relies on faith. Humean grounds obviously refers to David Hume, a well-known philosopher. You seem to really be trying to convince yourself you are intelligent, in my eyes, however, you are failing. - Lord Kenneth 01:26, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't care about your opinion of my intelligence, for reasons I'll leave you to work out. You seem to have looked up Hume, but still not to have understood my point. Think about it. Gene Ward Smith 01:53, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As to what is or what is not a part of science, I suggest you scope out philosophy of science, and also follow the links there to Charles Pierce, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Michael Polyani and Paul Feyerabend (and someone should add a Hempel page.) Gene Ward Smith

If you're referring to the scientific process being able to analyze itself, I'm well aware of that fact. However, the "critics" I speak of are the ones who insist faith is an equally viable alternative to science, a rather silly position to take. I already knew about Hume. - Lord Kenneth 02:25, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

ESP is only hotly debated by those few pseudoscientists versus the scientific establishment. There is no scientific evidence for ESP, and there is no reason to treat it as being remotely true. Creationism, as well, is anti-scientific and is not a fact.

Hallelujah, Brothers and Sisters! I believe! Unfortunately for you, your beliefs, however passionately held, are not facts. Gene Ward Smith

Oh? Where among the scienticic establishment is ESP "hotly debated" among credible scientists, besides the few parapsychologists with dubious records? - Lord Kenneth 01:26, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

• • Your question in fact can easily be answered simply by consulting that famous reference work, the Wikipedia, where a number of links are given on parapsychology to respectible academic institutions studying the topic. Sorry, but if real scientists are still arguing the matter, you certainly don't get to decide the question is now settled.

Gene Ward Smith 04:47, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No serious scientist today believes psychic powers exist.

• • Do you have evidence for this unlikely claim? What is your definition of a "serious scientist"--one who does not believe that psychic powers exist? Most scientists are not working in this area, but that does not allow you to conclude they don't believe in psychic powers. For that, you would need a word which seems utterly absent from your vocabularly and completely foreign to your mode of thought, the word evidence. Learn it. Use it. You might consider, for instance, that scientists are known to believe unlikely sounding things, such as Mormonism, without ceasing to be scientists. There is also an obvious circularity in dismissing all the scientists who work in this area (and you did check out how widespread this is in academia?) as not serious, because you don't agree with their conclusions. This page is your very own faith-based initiative, but it seems to me it would be better if you stepped back and let actual skeptics edit it. Gene Ward Smith 10:39, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Haha, just because some scientists believe in strange stuff does not mean they are consistent or are being scientific. Do you believe in psychic powers? That might explain your bias. - Lord Kenneth 14:35, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

And you say you know a lot about science... talk about a load of hot air!

• • Are you a high school graduate, by any chance?

 The scientists who believe in psi are similar to the "scientists" who believe in creationism. Parapsychology itself is not necessarily belief in psychic or supernatural powers, take Susan Blackwell, a (non-quack) parapsychologist who does serious work on NDEs- Lord Kenneth 05:57, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

It's obvious you're rather anti-skeptic and you have no credible say on the matter. - Lord Kenneth 20:48, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

Two can play that game--it's obvious I am way more educated than you and much more intelligent. Now what? Gene Ward Smith 00:59, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A comedian, too! - Lord Kenneth 01:26, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

you're rather anti-skeptic and you have no credible say on the matter -- Are the two statements here intended to be linked? I hope not. — No-One Jones (talk) 20:55, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I say it because, by his above comments, it's obvious that he knows little on the matter and any changes he would make are obviously likely to be POV-- it even appears he was insinuating James Randi relies on faith, a rather ridiculous claim to anyone who actually has read anything by him. - Lord Kenneth 20:58, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

• I checked out JDR, and found he seems involved with a goofy page about Tesla's theory of gravity. I don't know where the information came from, but he is obviously taking it far more seriously than it deserves. It looks to me that both JDR and Lord Kenneth are trying to write above their pay grade. What a mess! Gene Ward Smith 07:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• • Or I'm trying to fix a blatantly POV article. Since you know nothing of scientific skepticism, you probably shouldn't comment on it. - Lord Kenneth 20:48, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

• And what is wrong with criticizing science and the data gathering process, itself? That's how entirely new fields get opened up. Mind you--I work in a molecular biology lab, and am pretty hard-nosed when it comes to quackery, but I'm also very suspicious of any attempt to turn science into more than an apparently useful tool. It's a set of techniques that can be altered if it turns out that it is necessary. To make it wrong to "criticize" science is to make science, itself anti-skeptical. Dogface 19:01, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• • The thing is they are criticizing verification of data, observation, etc. I use science to not mean the type of facts, but the method/attitude itself. Sure, you can point out possible flaws, but to argue against gaining knowledge is the exact opposite of what an encyclopedia is supposed to do! I'm arguing against the people who think anecdote and faith are equally useful tools, which they certainly are not. Science will never rely on faith, because it's unscientific. And an encyclodedia should not allow claims that are based on faith or conjecture to be presented as established fact. - Lord Kenneth 21:04, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Topics in sexuality

This user is causing problems on several pages relating to human sexuality, in particular on topics relating to homosexuality. He insists on reverting to his own preferred edits, and refuses to properly address objections from other users. Much of his (mis)information comes from questionable web sources, and though it appears he doesn't have much independant knowledge of the topics, he insists he's right. It's becoming a problem. Exploding Boy 09:57, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

I am adding accuracy to some of the human sexuality article, (in particular to topics relating to homosexuality; but there are several other sex articles I have edited (ex, List of sexual positions and Hetrosexuality)).

I will revert or modify non-NPOV edits (especially from homosexual or bi POVs).

I have continually tried to address objections from other users (If they are called for; and I do so at the specific articles, not usually here).

Much of the information can be cited from web sources ... but that is not my main source (being a self-professed and long term pervet has helped knowing about sexual topics). Some of the links are just citations to help others see teh verifiablility of the info (which is good form).

Your continual personal attacks does not help your stance nor does your misinterperting my edits (one of which you accused me of altering text and I did not, you did ... I can provide the link if you want). Nor has your conduct of talking about me with other ppl ("behind my back" so to say) and not to me (as I try to address every comments to brought to my attention (especially, if its a valid concern ... though I do sometimes "feed the trolls" [as to not let thier comments stand without refute]).

Sincerely, JDR

1. What you see as adding accuracy others see as adding a distorted point of view.

2. Your very statement that you revert or modify non-NPOV "especially from homosexual or bi POVs" is in itself an indication of your bias (for example, the long running and -- largely because having started the controversy you've failed to go back and address it -- still unsolved debate on talk:same-sex marriage.

3. Citations are always desirable, but yours are frequently unreliable (witness your use of the page "#1 Blonde Jokes"). It's fine to use web sources, but they're not always good sources. Your claim, quoted from one of your sources, that "moo" and "duh" are "common" terms for heterosexuals is highly suspect. My edit, which did not delete that information despite a search having failed to uncover any corroboration for it, removed the superlative "common" and replaced it with a more cautious version which correctly stated that if these terms exist, they are most certainly NOT common.

4. To my knowledge I have never "misinterpreted" your edits, in so far as I can understand them (see comments on the talk:heterosexuality page). Your remarks above mischaracterise what you call the "accusation" I made: that you altered the look of a series of external links and references (note that this was totally unrelated to the content of the article and was a comment on formatting). In fact, what I said was that I didn't like how they looked. As I explained at the time, I assumed you had altered them because I had not physically done it myself, and we were both editing the page in question at the time. It turned out that I had done it, but without realizing it (not being familiar with that particular wikicode). I apologized for the mistake, but really that has no relevance to this discussion at all. On the other hand, I have tried to be polite and to follow wikiquette, but have found it increasingly difficult. How do you tell someone that their writing just isn't very clear? Well under normal circumstances it shouldn't be necessary, but with you apparently it is, because any change elicits a flurry of "talk" and reverts.

As for my "talking about you behind your back," first, what I discuss with other users is none of your concern; I made every effort not to specifically mention you anyway. Second, I have attempted repeatedly to discuss things with you as a simple look will reveal, but never with much success. Apparently (see above, and elsewhere) I'm not the only one who's had similar problems.

Your own admission of "feeding the trolls" (and I certainly hope you're not suggesting that's what I am) really just serves to underline these points. Exploding Boy 11:30, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

1. Distorted point of view? YMMV ... accuracy is seen as distortion by some ...

2. Modifying non-NPOV edit "especially from homosexual or bi POVs" is, in itself, not a bias ... it is attempt to bring articles back to neutrality from those POVs.

2a. Go back and address it? I posted my comments and they still stand (see the archive) ... it still has unsolved issues and I hope that talk:same-sex marriage can solve it ... among these are that the same-sex marriage article doesn't treat neutrally homosexual relationships (from a external observation ('eg'. failure to see like sexes' relationships as homosexual [male-male / female-female]); This should not be from a view of interal personal orientation); proponent's and opposition's views not treated equally; The articel uses euphemisms when describing the relationships; "rule by the mob" - "majority rule" defines content. [Additionally, personal attacks and heavy mischaracterization common on observers/editors]. I have stepped away from the discussion and editing it PRIMARILY to avoid conflicts (and edit wars) ... It seems as if you want to draw me into that behavior ...

3. "Citations are always desirable"? yes ... frequently "unreliable"? YMMV on that ... the one you bring up was from a hastely sourced site (primarily because of IMO non-neutral protests) ... and after further searching, I did find several sites that that were better sources (and changed the listing to a better one). It's just not fine to use web sources ... it is desirable, because acknowledging suppoting sources is good form (and, inwhich, others can verify the same facts).

3a. As to the "moo" and "duh" that you are suspect of being not "common" terms, the urban dictionary is openly reviewed ... and is a renown source for urban slang ... and it states that it is refered to this.

3b. Your edits did delete information despite sourced citations. See the citation for the corroboration of the facts.

3c. Your removal the exaggerated expression of "common" and replaced it with a less accurate version which incorrectly stated that if these terms exist, they are most certainly not common. (just because you don't use it doesn't mean alot of other ppl don't use it frequently.)

4. I have repeatedly pointed out your "misinterpretion" of my edits. I'm sorry you cannot understand them (but mabey it's because you refuse to understand them, I hope that isn't the case).

4b. It was an "accusation" you made: Specifically, that I altered a series of external links and references. In fact, you accussed me of formatting them that way. It turned out that you had done it ... and I think I tried to point that out to you. It is relevant to this discussion, because it's an example of your "misunderstandings". YMMV on how polite you were and if wikiquette was observed, I know it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to do both also.

4c. How do you tell someone that their writing just isn't very clear? I think a better question is "how does an editor make the writing clearer"? ... I would posit that adding and expanding the sentences would be needed (YMMV on that) ... rather than deleting and shortening them. Under most circumstances I recognize that my grammar or spelling have errors (eg. my Korben Dallas quote), but that is NOT reson to delete the content of the edits (improve, don't remove I think is the general policy here in wikipedia) .... but with your edit this is not the case, because the changes are not just for spelling and grammar. And changing the content will elicits a series of "talk" and reverts, if that is necessary.

5. If you are discussing me with other users. it is my concern.

5a. Your "effort" not to specifically mention me only adds to the decite, IMO.

5b. I have attempted discussing things with you, but never with much success either. You are not the only one who's had similar problems, but you can keep company with Lord Kenny and others of his ilk if you choose.

6. I admit that I sometimes "feed the trolls" (you conveniently missed the point that it is to not let thier comments stand without refute), though I do try to refrain ... but I'm not suggesting that's what you are [presently] ... but your personal attacks on me and mischaracterization of my edits (along with editing my talk comments) are not helping ...

Sincerely, JDR 13:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. This could go on forever.

1. It is partly the accuracy of your edits that is in dispute.

2. You clearly think that gay and bi points of view are inherently biased while straight points of view are "neutral." This is bias.

3. Your position on the word "homosexual" in the context of same-sex marriages -- that "homosexual" can be used as synonymous with "same-sex" in that context -- has been discussed ad nauseam on the talk page. Your argument continues to be that "same-sex" is a euphemism, when it has been clearly demonstrated that it is not. I won't repeat the arguments here; please see the talk: same-sex marriage page. In fact your general preference for the word "homosexual" over other terms (you even change it when other words are used in your sources), despite the controversy surrounding the word (for which ample evidence has been put forth), is evidence of bias.

4. "#1 Blonde Jokes" is not the only source you've provided that I consider unreliable. In addition, regarding the as-yet-unresolved issue with the word heterosexualism, you have been selective in your choice of sources, ignoring those that give a definition different from the one you support. You see determined to include the word in the article on heterosexuality, and you refuse to acknowledge that it might be better redirected elsewhere, despite conceding that the defintions do match. I have been unable to even edit that paragraph for clarity even though it's ungrammatically and confusingly written because you refuse to discuss your intended meaning.

5. Regarding "moo" and "duh": if they were so common one would expect to find them in more than one reference, and in the larger dictionaries. The word breeder (with the definition "heterosexual") appears in dictionaries like Merriam-Webster as well as on a wide range of slang dictionaries and other web pages. The words "moo" and "duh" appear only as the sound a cow makes, and an expression of stupidity, respectively. If, as your source and you claim, "moo" and "duh" were common terms for "breeders," then one would expect that the terms would be in use in the same areas and by the same people as the word "breeder." This does not appear to be the case. I'm betting you'd never heard the terms yourself before you found them on that site.

6. I'm not discussing this alleged "accusation" any further. What I wrote above stands: I thought you had changed the formatting of a series of reference links when in fact I had done it myself without realizing it. What I said was "I hate what you've done with those links." It was a comment on formatting, not content. It was not a misunderstanding, it was a mistake, for which I apologized. Let it go.

7. The issue with unclear writing is that editing your posts is made difficult by your refusal to clarify them and your insistence on, for example, the use of words that most others deem non-NPOV (thus the need to alter content occasionally, though I dispute your claim that that's what was done in the posts you're referring to).

8. Even if I am discussing you with other users, it's not your concern. There was no "deceit" about it; nothing was said in the two or so posts you're talking about that wasn't said on the talk pages, and there was no effort made to (a) hide it from you or (b) lie to you about it.

PS: I fail to see how same-sex marriage doesn't treat the topic neutrally. Exploding Boy 14:13, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to be concise (though this may cause more "misunderstandings") ...

1. Accuracy of my edits are supported by sources. 2. Gay and bi points of view are biased ... that is why they are POVs. Straight points of view should be used with the others so a total "NPOV" can be attained. 3. The word "homosexual" in the context of same-sex marriages is accurate. "Same-sex" is a euphemism (ie., external and objective evaluation of the relationships would be neutral ... and this has been explained ad nauseam). 4. The word heterosexualism is a synonym for heterosexuality and "straightness" (see citation). As to ignoring definition different, no ... that is why there is a compare link. 5. Regarding "moo" and "duh": The citation stand and, IIRC, I've seen the terms in this context myself before. 6. [snip "alleged" accusation]. 7. "Unclear writing"? YMMV on that ... and editing posts for spelling and grammar is not removing the content (if in doubt leave it). The points are clear from the sources. [snip EB's "still dispute] 8. If you are discussing me with other users, it's my concern ... If I were to discuss you with other users I'd be more than willing to cite your name and tell you explicitly (the only time I have mentioned you is during edit conflict; re:the most recent one via IRC). There was "deceit" in it, IMO. Not mentioning me (though the reference is clear) was hiding it. I'm glad you are not lying about it now, though. 9. You probably fail to see how same-sex marriage doesn't treat the topic neutrally because of your POV.

Sincerely, JDR

It's becoming obvious that this is all pretty much pointless.

The accuracy of your sources is part of the problem.

Nothing you have ever posted supports your claim that the word "homosexual" in the context of same-sex marriages is accurate. "Same-sex" is not a euphemism. Its use is appropriate because, as has been stated for your benefit more times than I care to remember, people in couples of the same gender are not necessarily homosexual.

I don't believe your claims about "moo" and "duh" to be frank. If you had been familiar with the terms, you would have edited to that effect without the need for a source. Your claim of "commonness" is inaccurate.

My discussions with other users are none of your business. I couldn't care less if you feel it was "deceitful," a word you clearly don't understand, and please refrain from calling me a liar. That's the last time I will discuss this subject.

Your barbs on my supposed POV notwithstanding, you have never once explained why you feel the article is non-NPOV.

It's becoming more and more obvious that you are either unable to overcome your bias on certain topics or are deliberately causing conflict, and your attacks are becoming more and more personal. Exploding Boy 15:20, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

I agree ... this is pretty much pointless (as it seems that you are unreasonable), just have to agree to disagree. The sources are accurate ... and can be sourced elsewhere. Are you serious about claiming "nothing supports my claim that the word "homosexual" in the context of same-sex marriages is accurate? What?!?! Hmmm ... =-\ ... that is not what the defintions of the words provide (just a suggestion, invest in a dictionary for yourself) ... (BTW, thanks for the statement "people in couples of the same gender are not necessarily homosexual", I got a laugh out of that for about 15 minutes). Just to clue you in ... the defintions follow (which you can find these [or equilivants] in several places):

"same" = same in identity

"sex" = either of the two categories (male or female)

"homo" = one and the same

"sexual" = involving sex

So ... same-sex is equilvilant to homosexual. "Same-sex" is just a recent euphemism (mainly foisted by homosexual proponents and liberal supporters). AND ... Individuals of couples (of the same gender) are necessarily homosexual.

Homosexual by wikistandards is "sexual orientation or orientations characterized by romantic or sexual desire for, or sexual attraction toward, members of the same sex. AND Same-sex "refers to a couple of the same sex". Marriage is "socially sanctioned union". As can be seen "Individuals of a sexual orientation to members of the same sex in a socially sanctioned union" is synonomous with "Individuals of a couple of the same sex in a socially sanctioned union". [note, I haven't even mention that "homosexual marriages" are not currently socially sanctioned in many places around the world (in particular the USA); but that is another whole discussion].

You don't believe me on the edits? That's fine ... some people deny truth frequently ... [snip further alledges "error" accusations] Discussions about me is my business, reguardless of who it is. Couldn't care less? nice, though I shouldn't expect any less from you ... [snip "deceitful"] ... I didn't call you a liar (another o' your mischaracterizations). Your POV notwithstanding, I have explained why the article is non-NPOV ... but I believe you refuse to acknowledge it. You, inkind, are either unable to overcome your bias or, more likely and which is a better explination, deliberately pov'ing the articles in question ... as to my attacks are becoming more personal, this may be because of your continued and repeated "misunderstandings", prvious edits on my talk comments, and continuing mischaracterizations of my position.

JDR 22:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please refer back to the talk:same-sex marriage page for more information about why the word "homosexual" and "same-sex" are not equivalent (though if you believe they are I fail to see why you're so worked up about using one over the other).

Individuals of couples of the same gender are not necessarily homosexual: for a start, you fail to take into account bisexuals. Please explain how two bisexual men in a relationship are homosexual.

Homosexual by the source you quote is "sexual orientation or orientations characterized by romantic or sexual desire for, or sexual attraction toward, members of the same sex." The next sentence reads: "The term usually implies an exclusive or predominant sexual orientation toward persons of the same sex, and is distinguished from bisexuality as well as heterosexuality.

You are right, however, that same-sex "refers to a couple of the same sex". I'm glad you finally get that concept at least.

Marriage is "socially sanctioned union". Fair enough. That same-sex marriages are "not socially sanctioned in many places around the world" is irrelevant to the article. See the talk page for more reasons why.

Not calling me a liar?? Quoted from above:

I'm glad you are not lying about it now, though.

Your "effort" not to specifically mention me only adds to the decite [sic], IMO.

And from below

You . . . are . . . deliberately pov'ing the articles in question

For whatever reason you have a bee in your bonnet about the word "homosexual." This is either because you have some issue with homosexuality, or perhaps because you enjoy creating discord and controversy. Either way, you have failed to convince anyone else of your point of view (see all the relevant talk pages). You also refuse to take into account any other users' comments, promoting your own as the only ones that are correct despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. These facts, along with the comments from other users about you on this page and a series of others, as well as your history of revert wars, suggest that you are a problem user whose remarks should be given only a minimum of notice.

Exploding Boy 10:26, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Just addressin' your mischaracterizations ... as I have given up tryin to reason with you on the homosexual; marriage topic ...

The contextualization of the phrase "not lying about it now", refer to you talking about me (and admitting it which is a good thing) ... and "decite" was incontext to the omission action [avoiding referencing me directly] not any lie.

Failed to convince anyone? On wikipedia, mabey that is true ... but again, that is why the wiki-dislaimer is there on every page ["Do not rely upon anything found at wikipedia, your independent verification is strongly recommended"].

Homosexual and same-sex are equivalent

The word 'homosexual' is an objective classification and more accurate than various euphemisms (despite any negative implications)

Union of two persons of the same gender = "homosexual marriage"

Sincerely, JDR 10:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) [It's too bad that POV of that article will continue ...]

You fail, naturally, to admit that whatever agenda you're pushing is your own POV. No matter. Obviously the fact that you've failed to convince anyone else is telling. In case you missed what's happened here, you've managed to get no support for your biased point of view. Please refrain from promoting it further and from altering articles to suit it. Exploding Boy 13:24, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

"promoting it"? No need to ... others (outside wikipedia) state the correct information.

You could refrain from promoting the incorrect information further and from altering articles to suit your POV.

JDR 18:53, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Bully editing": When users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and when they repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else by resorting to reverting efforts to stop them, this is a form of vandalism."

Exploding Boy 22:12, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)