On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:58:31 -0800, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote: [snip] Clearly the government of Canada did not send troops to Vietnam. Clearly also, Canadian citizens fought alongside Americans in the Vietnam. However, I believe the only reasonable neutral interpretation of "Canada sent troops to Vietnam", in the context provided (when talking about the actions of the Canadian government w.r.t. wars) is that the Canadian government sent soldiers from its army to Vietnam. I quite agree that the anti-Coulter arguments deserve balance, and I think it's important to mention that Canadians did serve there (in Coulter's defence). But I also think that suggesting that Canada *did* send troops is an inaccurate characterization of the facts surrounding that particular POV.

[snip] Shouldn't this be on the talk page?

I've just copped the latest in a long line of personal attacks from one particular editor who stands out for his attitude in a community where tolerance and restraint is generally the norm. I don't think his comments are justified, but even if they were, I would still take exception to the language: "Well I'm upset (really pissed off actually) by your deliberate obfuscation and timewasting, your dishonesty, your malicious misrepresentation of other people arguments, your rampant vanity and egotism and your general obnoxious fuckwittedness, so get used to it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Government_of_Australia#The_real_issue To my mind this is no way to conduct any sort of productive debate, and as a rather new editor I wonder just how much this sort of thing is tolerated.

> of state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition > of what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of > his sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.

Before something can be Original research it must first be research. Please learn the difference between research and wishful thinking.

Ec

From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 07:24:17 -0700 To: <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors The first thing that is wrong is that I am tempted to click on that link to see who it is and what you might have done. Then if I look at your edits and decide they are indeed "fuckwitted" and the person making the personal attacks is a valuable and popular editor, I might be tempted to excuse him. The policy is No personal attacks. That attack and any other attacks you see on yourself or any other editor may be deleted on sight. We do not provide for automatic blocking or banning of persons who make personal attacks. What generally happens is that eventually through the dispute resolution process they come to arbitration. Generally they are put on personal attack parole. Then they can be banned for a short period if they make an attack. Now I will follow the link: Searching for "fuckwit", I find User:Adam Carr, a user who is considered to be a very valuable editor who has a history of making personal attacks but who has yet to be "brought to justice". He was once banned for one day for this but complained vociferously. Obviously a slap on the wrist and several warnings does no more good than a fart in the wind. I will now examine your contributions to see if you are a "bad" editor: The controversy seems to be about who is "head of state" of Australia, you see to be hold a minority view, whatever that is. Adam Carr says: "We have heard your views on these topics ad nauseam. We have decided that we don't agree with you. We are now proceeding to edit the article in accordance with the majority view. That is the way things work here. If you don't like it, feel free to leave. Is that clear enough for you? Adam 06:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)" What I question, without looking at the article, or knowing with certainty what the actual issue is; is why some mechanism using NPOV is not used to somehow express both views. Looking at one of the diffs in the editor war on the article page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Government_of_Australia&diff=… 006&oldid=10720075 I see that both views are set forth in full in both your versions, but that while Adam Carr says there IS a convention that the Governor General is head of state of Australia, you say that there IS a contention over the question. Ah Hah, I might say, a "bad editor arguing over nothing", because your generalization that there is a contention is smack dab in the middle of an extended discussion of the different ways one might look at the matter. To extend that point further, is the question of head of state usually argued when candidates stand for election? Anyway, while I find Adam in the right as far as editing is concerned, he is certainly in the wrong with respect to his abusive language and discourtesy. Fred Anyway, please feel free to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanism, but please don't fall into the sort of behavior we see Adam engaging in here. Don't make personal attacks and be courteous to other editors _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l