Anacapa

Welcome!

Hello, Anacapa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Paul foord 02:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Help question

I am engaged in an edit war with people who IMO commit POV by ommission, who state falsehoods as facts, who refuse to recognize their POV and who make statements with no sources. I also face blatant character assassination of the history pages which I have been calling as such with invitations use facts and thoughts instead. These people are Mennonite, a church of secretive Anapbaptists who can get away with this because most people do not have the knowledge to balance their biases. I grew up inside and later outside their control so I know how to detect their deceptions, patent falsehoods and ommisions with relative ease here. I also have a hard science background so I am quite comfortable facing fact with fact in an objective fashion. However, all they do is rv with no alternatives and call me 'obsessed' etc. I inserted a NPOV and a fact check on the Excommunication section related to Mennonites. Note, I have sound causes to hate some Mennonite conduct (shunning) and to hate some aspects of Mennonite theology/dogma, but I do not hate Mennonites as people or these particular editors as people, I just hate how they squelch all other points of view especially POV's from people they choose to excommunicate (such as my relatives). Please suggest ways I can succeed here at attaining a complete NPOV article with facts as sources and contain/eliminate this edit war.

Thanks Anacapa 04:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm looking into it. I'll get back to you with some suggestions soon. Just to be clear, the only article of concern is Mennonite? You can respond here, I'll check back.--Commander Keane 04:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article/section now in question is Excommunication/Amish and Mennonite. There have been issues in the main article Mennonite (see talk page which I was too blunt on) and I expect more there because this entire main Mennonite article is packed with self-serving all positive POV and much POV by ommission too. It does not reflect reputable secular histories of these people very well. I also expect possible issues with Shunning and Anapbaptist/Mennonite theological articles later as I begin to associate statements such as 'the one true church' and 'abominable' people who 'nothing can grow from except abominable things' to Tolitarian or 'Mind Control' articles. Thanks for the instant response!

Note the Mennonite talk/history pages contain a fair sample (beginning 11/05) of the kinds of character assassinations I faced there (before I became a wikipedian) and what I did to call such tactics and welcome facts rather than emotional assaults back. I will note that these tactics are similar in form to what about 5 of my closest relatives also have been enduring for decades in orthodox Mennonite shunning situations. This is what I expected to and I cannot succeed against a secretive group that can easily overwhelm me with all-against-one edit wars and totalitarian tactics. To me, the church POV is no more or less valid than a single excommunicants POV. For centuries now, the voices of those who the church shunned have been silenced allowing the church to commit terrible pyschological torture and appear 'nice' too. To me wikipedia is one place to begin to shed a little light on this topic. That said, there IS much that IS good and nice about how Mennonites do relate in other situations that also needs to be studied here too. Anacapa 04:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at the situation. It is certainly difficult, and there are no easy answers. Try not to get too offended by edit summaries like "rm POV pushing" - Wikipedia can be a rude place sometimes and we have to try to Assume good faith. One way to get your new material included is to cite your sources, if there is a source then it can't be labelled as POV and removed (however, I know finding sources can be very difficult). Also, try to start discussion on the talk page about your additions (maybe even before you introduce them). Other editors are obliged to respond to your queries on the talk page, and if they do remove anything you added without discussing it on the talk page ask them to (if they still don't then ask me to ask them). If, after considerable discusion, you still can't resolve your dispute with the articles then you could take a look at the options presented at Resolving disputes. But essentially it comes down to find osurces and working out your dispute on the talk page. I hope that is some help, as I said, it is a tricky situation.

Also, I'll speak to Rbj about the rude edit summaries.

Commander Keane, Thanks for your help. You made many good points here. I want you to know I did not/will not lose my temper against mere rudeness. However, there has to be some control of this (his and no doubt his perception of my) rudeness here to complete these articles in NPOV. Today's SF Chronicle article How Google Censors It's Chinese Portal shows what I am up against here. The are many non-smiling Mennonites whose stories would never be seen if the official Mennonites could get away with similar forms of totatilaritian censoreship here on Wikipedia. I will use your suggestions above although I might need a little assistance with how. I know better than to assume good faith here since I can READ the theological confessions on which these people base their faith (See Main Mennonite article and the original confessions). That said I can separate people from their dogmas and I mean no personal offense to rbj or any other person here. However, I do becomed offended by false, hateful, or biased statements. I have the dubious priviledge of having been raised inside Mennonite control so I can see and call things here that are invisible to non-Mennonites. These people are quite secretive and often use Mennonite-related 'social scientists' to write about and speak for them in POSITIVE POV to the mass media. This is what I want to balance here. I am not, I repeat NOT, obsessed with showing all Mennonites to be terrible people. I am focused on hateful theologies, terrible totalitarian tactics and false forms of mind control in Mennonites churches, from extreme to mild.

Here is how I ask you to help me/us in what is, indeed, a 'tricky', situation. I added and rbj added comments on the discussion page. Would you review those from a NPOV with no axe to grind and call anything ugly or inppropriate you see there in both our statements? I am also going to move forward with meticulously documented edits. Will you review my edits for fact/sources and tone to make sure I do not in any way demean or insult rbj, as a person, or use unsourced POV to push my agenda? Will you also review (or ask rbj's 'Commander' to) review his edit comments to eliminate his personal character assassinations, personal innuendos and false, slanderous comments about his view of my motivations/'condition'. Will you ask him to stick to the point with sourced statements and reason-able facts and recognize the difference between Church POV and other POV's. Please glance at the External links in Shunning to see other POV's including one feminist's POV about orthodox Mennonites. I am trying to include facts here like 'A dress code was required of all female church members and those who departed from the orthodox style were shunned and exiled from the community.' "She was ill, spiritually ill. She was expelled for having 'foreign spirits'. We could all see it in her behavior and dress: she was just out of ('our', added by me) control"

Will you also suggest ways to include all POV's (Church and Non-church) in these Mennonite related articles? I was successful at adding a 'loaded' paragraph on the Feminism page with relative ease and only minor edit warring because they do have a place for criticism of feminism on their article and because they do welcome sourced material that differs from their POV there.

Google Scholar shows about 80? articles on Mennonite/shunning, yet I see almost no genuine study about shunning or Mennonite social control in the Main Mennonite article. This is blatant POV by ommission. I need your backing to help complete a balanced NPOV study of Mennonites in Excommunication, Shunning, in the Main Mennonite article.

Please suggest/comment. I welcome, ALL focused feedback on my conduct here too. I am doing what I can to follow Wiki protocols here.

Anacapa 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you asked a question on Paul foord's user page instead of his talk page, I moved it for you.--Commander Keane 05:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have Mennonite on my watchlist, so I'll try to keep an eye on things. I'll also keep an eye on Excommunication and Shunning. (and all the respective talk pages)--Commander Keane 06:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What people do

Anacapa, most people create or edit articles, and lots of people just use the encyclopedia. There are a number of communities and informal groups. You can see what editors interests and activity by looking up their contributions at: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree (I find this ability a bit daunting!)

There are a range of other activities - meetups, collaborative projects, etc - the community portal has some pointers. -- Paul foord 05:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User page/talk page

Hi Anacapa, the user page is where you introduce yourself - i.e., your public profile. Your talk page where you and others conduct dialogue (about anything). -- Paul foord 11:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

condensing edits

Say, a few tips. If possible, can you condense all your edits into one as much as possible, I keep getting edit conflicts when I try to edit the article. Secondly, try not to insert adjectives like "bestial" or "poisonous" in there, perhaps you could say that is the view of Western culture, but certainly is not a concrete view shared by all peoples. Word the statements so that it is compatible with other views (ie. view A says this, view B says that, rather than just stating both views as uncontested fact, otherwise the article will contradict itself). Just a suggestion. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Good organisation so far, so I like the way the findings are presented, just that we need sources preferably soon (no pressure; just requesting them if you have them right now) in citation format (I can help you with that) so it doensn't look like we're ambiguously defining this out of thin air (because again, this is not known very well). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 29% for major edits and 14% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 7 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear inpolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To see how your edit summary usage is doing, you can visit here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Excommunication

I guess you wanted me to take a look at the merge idea. I have no knowledge in the area, but the merge isn't going ahead so I think that's ok. Your latest comment seems to put the pressure on others to provide rebuttle sources. However, make sure you provide sources yourself when you introduce new ideas.--Commander Keane 06:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Today's Changes

You've hit the "save" button a lot today on the Mennonite article. Yeah, not many words, but they seem to be well-chosen. So many people confuse "typing" with "writing" and don't realize that research and GOOD writing is hard work. I seem to be running into a lot of them lately; it's nice when I happen across your work, instead. ClairSamoht 04:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second that. Well done, Anacapa! And I look forward to more thoughtful contributions. You've really taken up the challenge of sharpening up the Mennonite article and clarifying sticky membership and umbrella group issues. mennonot 17:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my attempts to bring some clarity and balance and real representation to the Mennonite article. It gets awfully lonely here sometimes due to all the POV's, the opposing opinions and the paucity of sound sources. I welcome any and all help from the other side of the Pond especially in terms of fact checking, balance, and sourcing because sometimes I have to rely on reasonable implications sans data or facts. Anacapa 04:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Mennonite article needs to have more sources and to have references cited more systematically. Right now the footnotes are quite spotty and concentrated in only two or three sections. I don't have the time right now to tackle the article as a whole, but if you have specific facts you need checked or references, let me know. I have access to a quite extensive Anabaptist-related library and I'd be glad to look up specific things as they come up. mennonot 10:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Anacapa. I'm sorry you were offended by something I wrote on another user's talk page. However before you start resusing to cooperate I suggest you go and reread what I wrote. I did not accuse you of anything, and I did not claim to know what was in your mind. I did suggest a possibility of the thinking that might be governing your approach, namely "It sometime happens that an editor arrives at a page with a very fixed idea about something, usually based on a strong (but sometimes very limited) experience they have had". In fairness I based this idea on what you had already written, namely writing things in Mennonite that looked as if they applied to all Mennonites, but which in fact were only true of a small minority. I didn't suggest any approach to Stettlerj other than suggesting that something she said to me be repeated on the Mennonite talk page - i.e. reducing the level of behing-the-scenes discussion.

I have no intention of fighting with you at all. My intention here is to produce the best and most balenced articles that we can. If you are willing to work towards that too then I will continue to cooperate fully. DJ Clayworth 19:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Working out Numbers for Mennonite Conferences

I appreciate your offer to assist with Anapabaptists/Mennonite facts/data. Could we begin with just getting the Population section complete and somewhat representative of the data? What would help me is a figure for the 2003 total US Mennonites. Also do you have a breakdown on how many US Mennonites belong to what conferences (versus automonous churches) so we can eliminate opinion based arguments here? I am going to try to discuss these issues on the relevant talk pages so no one feels blindsided...so please source these there or on a link. Also I welcome your sourced edits to clean up statements that may be false so long as we keep moving toward a more specific and complete picture there. Maybe with more facts we will be able to associate specific practices with specific groups so no ONE group feels unfairly steoreotyped through association with other groups. Anacapa 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your ongoing work on the Mennonite article. The best breakdown of North American Mennonites by conference appears to be here: http://www.mwc-cmm.org/Directory/namerica.html which is part of the Mennonite World Conference directory which also includes stats from other continents: http://www.mwc-cmm.org/Directory/index.htm The most interesting thing I found from reading this is that two Mennonite conferences in the Democratic Republic of Congo and one in Tanzania are both much bigger than Mennonite Church Canada (see http://www.mwc-cmm.org/Directory/africa.html). I've tried to correct for this in the article.

I'm still not completely clear about how you are defining autonomous. Are you referring to some of the smaller conference listed in the North America MWC directory like "Keystone Mennonite Fellowship" and "Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church and Related Areas"? Or is autonomous defined as not listed in this directory at all? mennonot 10:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Temporary refrain from editing on Feminism?

You've made 15 edits on this article since the last time I looked at it; I can't possibly go through them all right now. You asked for discussion on the talk page before any reversions of your edits, but then you kept on editing even though others had not had a chance to participate in the discussion. I respectfully request that you refrain from editing this article until we've had 1-2 days to discuss the use of the term "gender feminism" and other issues on the talk page, to give time for users other than you and I to participate in the discussion (one other user has weighed in already, but since you've continued editing, it will be hard to rewrite the article to reflect any consensus that gets achieved). I will refrain from editing it, as well. Catamorphism 08:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I will be glad to refrain from editing for a few days as long as I see no big changes by others in the content areas we are discussing and as long as I see no stunts like pulling gender content/links that I had nothing to do with adding from the article. I am also be willing to make slow changes so that you can consider them in the future too, but fair is fair here. I expect no less consideration back.

I also have a few requests. Please refrain from relational aggression against me with vague statements of 'problematic', with matronizing 'we' lectures and with inside so-called 'circles' in the discussion pages I am no feminist flunkie but I do respect people and feminist-people who respect me (and other people) who may or may not agree with them on all topics. I respect feminists and others who respect the basic fundamentals of research, discourse and dialogue. Therefore, please discuss personal conflicts you have about my so-called intentions or anything else with me on my discussion page so there is less possibility of poisoning me with personal opinions in the public discussion areas. On the the public pages please be specific, solution-oriented with issues you have with my edits and refrain from falsely reading my personal motives sight unseen. If you have suspicions about my intentions go ahead and ask me directly...you might be surprised with what you find.

Finally, just to let you know, that opening paragraph as it stood a few minutes ago is in IMHO much more NPOV than it was when we all began this series of editing. I am not here to prop up Wendy McElroy or anyone else. I am here to challenge what internationally recognised intellectual and feminist Camille Paglia called cult-like responses from contemporary (as opposed to early individual feministsfrom before the modern movement began) feminists. I see a lot of 'cult-like' POV by commission and POV by omission in this article which we can discuss as time goes on. I will add that this is supposed to be a NPOV article for all people, rather than a pander-to-positive-POV article by a few feminists for a few feminists. This is is my main issue with the article. Hope that helps to reduce some of the false impressions you might have. Anacapa 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your assumptions about my gender that appear to be implicit in your accusation of "relational aggression". I'm holding off on all other commentary in the hopes that others will comment on Talk:Feminism. Catamorphism 00:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for at least making the distinction 'appears to be implicit' here. However, please check your assumptions about MY assumptions with ME before you become offended. I make no assumptions about relational aggression being something ANY gender has a monopoly on. I think if you read some of the links in Relational Aggression you will see gender-neutral content there and I believe the article content makes that distinction too...how well is discussable. I will note that Baby Bush, Karl Rove and other Admin male and female cronies are masters at Relatonial Aggression. I ask that you check YOUR assumptions about my assumptions before you become make judgements about my assumptions or become (baselessly) offended. I come from a basic POV that violence: both physical and psychological, vice: both social and sexual, and all other forms of aggression are fairly gender-neutral despite the often hidden forms they take and the fact that each gender may often prefer particular forms over others. To stereotype, either, gender as good or bad is false, perjorative and POV, IHMO, if we are indeed try to achieve a world of gender-equality where women and men are responsible, accountable and equal adults and where feminism (and masculinism) is to be taken seriously. I will note that after reading Chessler's Woman's Inhumanity to Woman the idea that one gender is a nicer, better or more compassionate gender seems quite ridiculous. I will be glad to discuss assumptions with you further but please give me some assurances that I can count on respectable dialogue from you that is personal-personal, rather than any form of personal assault in public forums. I hope to prevent an ugly descent into edit wars between us based on mere misunderstandings on both sides Anacapa 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

One final note about how I handled this. I made specific comments about your tactics not your gender. The tactics themselves are what I take issue with here...not your gender, or you personally, so please refrain from making this about gender when ALL it is a request for respectable tactics. All of us use relational aggression IMHO and I welcome request/comments/suggestions to me about my tactics too should they be over the line. I am wide awake enough to see and call some forms of false victimhood as a weapon of war, so please be clean with me.Anacapa 02:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget it. Your comments, both on my talk page and on Talk:Feminism, are so long-winded that it's just not worth my time to be involved in this particular dispute. Radgeek has handled this well and I hope he and others will be able to reach some sort of consensus with you. I note that if you wish to persuade others, you won't find much sympathy when you compare them to Stalinists and mention at every opportunity how horrible they are for not being members of the cult of Camille Paglia. Catamorphism 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried...long-winded is better than beginning a pointless edit war. By the way, I am not looking for false sympathy, I am looking for people genuine enough to finish what they start with no mean tactics. I am looking for open discussions that go somewhere. What I did get from this is a fine lesson on who the covert 'they' are, which validates my POV concerns here and a good sense of the unwillingness of one particular person to address key POV in this article with me. People who have something significant to say should not, IMHO, be afraid of Camille Paglia or anyone else and should be willing to face facts with facts. I smell pander to 'them' POV stench in this article which I see many other editors above have commented on too. I had hoped that you were an editor able and willing to be big as well as nice but I see that to waste too much wind on strangers is a mistake now. I will welcome new discussions in lieu of stupid edit wars. If you have problems with my future edits and are unwilling to discuss them with me please at least be kind enough to be clean and professional in your edit comments. I will do the same. I take none of this personally but I do take relational aggression tactics personally so please be nice from here on out by being overt, specific and clean about my edits.Anacapa 04:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh one last thing. I made a commitment to wait awhile to meet your request. Am I now free to do what I see fit (with slow carefully commented edits) or do you still want me to wait?Anacapa 04:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I've disclaimed any further involvement with the article during the period in which you are editing, you're free to edit as you like. You'll have to work it out with other editors who are continuing to watch the article. Catamorphism 05:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and freeing me up to continue. I see your choice to quit while I am here which might be a long time, a dissapointing decision to me, and one I hope you will own as YOURS rather than claiming victimhood here as I certainly did not demean you or your gender, or in any way CAUSE you to make that decision. I can work with other editors who work with me and I welcome you to come back should you change your mind. Anacapa 00:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Anacapa aka (drop in editor)? - notice of WP:CSN discussion

Hi User:Anacapa, I'm wondering if you can help me. Are you the user who identifies themselves as (drop in editor) on gender studies pages?[1][2][[3]An inquiry into the (drop in editor) has led me to believe you are. A community noticeboard discussion was started about this. If you want to respond to this please do so. If you think you need advice (or advocacy) asked an admin for help. If I'm wrong I do apologise for bothering you--Cailil ^talk 22:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The community noticeboard disucussion has been suspended due to the boards uncertain future. If you'd like to drop me a line about this please do--Cailil ^talk 17:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Block warning

Please respect Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies. I have confirmed reports of serious problems coming from this account. Durova^Charge! 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Rape, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 02:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a statement that reflected the following [4] and tried to clean up the incorrect reverse sexist statements about rape. This is merely being bold in an article that panders to gender-feminist pov. Anacapa 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Continued POV pushing

You appear to be selectively deleting existing material, and adding unsourced material, original research, personal opinions, and mis-characterized references with the intention of introducing anti-feminist bias into articles. Replacing one perceived bias with the opposite bias is not allowed.

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to rape, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block

This account has been blocked indefinitely for making a legal threat. Durova^Charge! 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSN#Anacapa

If you wish to present your side of this matter you may post to this talk page while the discussion is ongoing. I have notified two other editors of that thread, Jehochman and Cailil since they were both involved in the investigation. For the sake of fairness, if you know of editors who may be sympathetic to your position and you wish them to be notified, please post their usernames here and someone will contact them (I'll do it tomorrow if no one gets to that before me). If you wish you can also join the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program while blocked by posting a template to your user space. Formal mentorship could have a positive impact on the outcome of that discussion. Durova^Charge! 19:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about your block. Talk to me (talk page or e-mail). If you feel bitter, I am willing to listen as I do to students and others who are having problems (not only math problems). Sometimes, talking to someone non-judgemental helps.Uetz 06:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reference at misandry, if indeed is was you who provided it. Reliable sources are very helpful for Wiki. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitors needed

{{helpme}} I need to talk to arbitors who know how to handle wikipedia's 'hive mind' abuses. Please respond if there is anyone within Wikipedia who cares about free speech and due process. Anacapa (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please visit this page for information on how to resolve disputes on wikipedia. Cheers. //roux   06:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Please provide a knowledgeable and THOUGHT-FULL arbritator, who I can consult with on SYSTEMIC Wikipedia "hive mind" abuses. I need someone who knowledgable about how wiki rules (like 'consensus') can be misused and abused to systematically censor content that is 'uncomfortable' or 'problematic' to goon-gangs of editors who dominate certain politically correct articles. I am willing to abide by the rules and to correct mistakes I made, but only if I have a fair chance to pull in well-sourced but politically incorrect content without being systematically bullied by totalitarian goons on this site.

I have no interest in fighting with specific goons unless the basic systemic issues are resolved somehow. I need someone "in the know" to show me how to secure myself from these thugs. Is Wikipedia a totally totalitarian tool or there a few administrators who care for good ole First Amendment protections? For those of you unwilling to take my word on this systemic threat, I ask that you review some cases on FIRE's online compendium to see what happens all over the US in our universities. Please respond if you care at all about free speech here. I am unwilling to be Wikipedia's 'Peter Schiff' (YOUTUBE) before the coming (credibility) collapse. I need a few good people to show me how to secure myself from SYSTEMIC abuses that I can not handle alone. >Anacapa (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Um, yikes, I dunno what to say there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Is Mr. Ten Pound Hammer the biggest 'wise one' wikipedia has today? How about about addressing the core issues I (and many others) have posed? Are there are ANY arbitrators out there who really know how to create genuine 'good faith' in situations polluted with ugliness disguised as 'good faith'. If so please contact me so I can discuss how I can resolve some of these systemic issues without wasting time and energy fighting gangs of goons who impose false consenses...good sources notwithstanding. Anacapa (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)