Folks, if you've posted to this page, please reference your comments with the four tildes so that the administrators will know that there is more than just one individual endorsing the concepts contained herein.
I see you have been experimenting with Wikipedia. Your change was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Vegaswikian21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I lived in Vegas for three years before moving to Korea. I now live in Germany. I'm sorry if the following comment may offend, but you cannot really expect me to believe that someone living in 1 country somehow qualifies them to negate my experiences from having lived in three and visited more than 30?
Those who discount my experiences outright do so not because they are informed, but because they are ignorant (not stupid, merely not very well-informed about a particular topic). Ignorance about an issue doesn't automatically make that issue wrong. This isn't information target practice where you shoot first and forget to ask questions. It's an opportunity for you to learn something that's outside your realm of experience. For example, most Westerners can't fathom that 40% of the men on this planet regularly wear skirts and dresses (unbifurcated garments). To them it's "silly." Women in the US go "Ewww!" Women elsewhere in the world go "So?" To the 1.4 Billion men who wear unbifurcated garments, it's clear that the ignorant are the silly ones, thinking they know everything about everything.
The human race as it exists beyond the US is quite amazing! I'm amazed both at how similar it is in many respects, yet how different it can be in some. Please take some time to do an appropriate amount of research before you dismiss it as being silly simply because you've never heard of it before.
I won't repeat the hours I've spent refuting comments on Wiki on several pages which have been vandalized, sometimes by admins. Edits are ok. Deleting inappropriate content is ok. Deleting content that contrary to the user's/admin's POV is not ok, particularly when numerous references to thousands of others on many different continents are provided. Deleting those references is not ok.
(Someone please strike this out and tell me how to do it: Offering up significant topics to the chopping block simply because they've never heard of it before are quite another. It's precisely because they haven't heard it that it should remain. After all,)
Wiki isn't merely a repository for knowledge that's agreed relevant by a few people of limited experience. There's a lot more to our world than we Westerners realize. When it comes to many topics we're surprisingly clueless. We're not stupid - it's just that our teachers never bothered to include this or that topic, for whatever reason, in their lesson plans. The media grew up in our system, too, so they're no more likely to focus on an unfamiliar issue than the general US public is to review it.
I do ask that you take a closer look at the issue, particular with respect to what appears to me as being knee-jerk reactions by those who've never travelled outside the US.
Given my experience, I think many of the comments are merely knee-jerk reactions automatically denouncing things simply because they're never heard of them, much like how Darwin's depictions of the strange animals he discovered on the Galapagos Islands were met with ridicule for years throughout the scientific community until it was confirmed - only then was he revered. Having thoroughly reviewed Wiki policy, it's unquestionably clear that these knee-jerk reactions and strong anti-comments are inappropriate. The MUG acronym is widely used throughout the fashion industry, is a clear delineator from clothes designed for women, far more specific terms such as "kilt," and not synonomous with other issues, such as Men's Fashion Freedom, a movement codified in the mid-90s, but born of the 50s. It's completely worthwhile in that respect alone, and has enjoyed more than 20 years of history - far longer than many Wiki entries.
Thank you for adjudicating this matter and responding accordingly.
Ignorant editing and comments are not appreciated. Please see my talk page for further information. And please educate yourself with respect to the topic at hand before you reply or cast judgement based on a lack of knowledge. Your "opinion" is welcome, so long as you stipulateit as such. As a resident of three countries and a vistor of more than 30 countries, your "opinion" is grossly in error with respect to the reality of experience. This is the entire point of the page in question - to help educate people and correct grossly incorrect understanding about manners of style and dress throughout the world. Automatically slamming behaviors of others simply because they're not your own only underscores the need for articles like these to educate people everywhere that people everywhere are different, who, what, where, why, and how.
Just thought I'd drop by and let you know that I have fulfilled your request for a 3rd opinion on this article. I feel that the AfD nomination is warranted although I cannot speak to your accusations of comment removal. If you think there really is the problem, then you should seek mediation. However, I would not recommend you pursue this unless you have specific evidence (ie diffs). Please let me know if I can be of any other help to you. --Hetar05:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you are taking the whole thing entirely too personally. Nobody - not one editor - has disputed that the wearing of skirts, sarongs, kilts etc. by men is anything other than widespread. The entire problem is with your terminology. The article at present reads like spam for kiltmen, kiltmen seems to be the fountain source of the neologism, and WP:NEO tells you what you need to know about how we deal with neologisms. Actually it's more like a protologism at that.
Response You and others throw the term "neologism" around like pasta on a kitchen wall. It has precisely two meanings:
1 : a new word, usage, or expression
2 : a meaningless word coined by a psychotic
Neither are applicable, here. Furthermore, it's not even a word - it's an acronym, and acronyms are created all the time. Even so, this acronym, so far as I've been able to determine, has been in existence at least since 1993, and possibly as early as the 70s.
The term "protologism" holds far less water, for two reasons:
1. I didn't create the acronym.
2. The term protologism doesn't appear in Merriam-Webster. Therefore, you have just committed neologism! How's that for irony? Dr181920:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to write about kilts, skirts for men, sarongs for men and any other related subjects. Do please bring them together under a common banner if you can find one that is widely attested (I couldn't find one, but I'm not an expert on male fashion, being an engineer who dresses inna Dilbert stylee).
Response - Given your lack of breadth in the fashion realm, shouldn't you be shying away from passing judgement on issues requiring more? That's just common sense. When I'm flying across an ocean, I want the pilot to be an experienced pilot, not a nurse, doctor, or other non-flying professional. Dr181920:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response No, Guy, it's not. Please stop claiming otherwise. Not only have you failed to prove that it is, but herein I've sufficiently discounted your claims to the contrary, primarily through the numerous links I've provided from many varied websites around the world. Dr181920:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Some have actually taken the time to seek what I have posted; others claim to have done so but cite they've found nothing. (???) Having found voluminous information from a variety of sources through the links I posted I can only logically assume those who claim to have found nothing are either smoking dope, are weaseling themselves, or are Naziistically attempting to remold the world to their own apparently limited understanding. I'm sorry if this offends! It's not meant to. But living here in Germany as I do, we're a bit more sensitive to the efforts of others trying to control people's thoughts, actions, etc. The response I've received from many (fortunately, not all) of the Wiki administrators to date smacks of what happened in this country from 1937 through 1944. Wiki is not a forum for world domination or imprinting your particular snapshot of how the world should be upon everyone else by excising everything that's foreign to you![reply]
Response
First, original research, according to Wiki, is "that has not been published already by a reputable source." Yet the term exists throughout the fashion industry, in many different publications, news articles, and even in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Tens of thousands of Wiki articles that have been blessed as "ok" can't hold a candle to this duration and breadth of coverage.
Second, weasel phrases "smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources," and "give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable." The sources I included are hardly anonymous. The facts include:
Numerous websites in existence for more than 5 years which actively discuss this issue among hundreds of thousands of people. A small sample was provided for readers to verify this.
Manufacturers who've actively been marketing skirts for men for years. Again, a small sample was provided for readers to verify this.
Many larger samples were provided in the discussion pages where readers can verify the millions of Google hits for these collection of terms. Dr181920:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be readressed. Although numerous, valid sources including mainstream media, the most promnanent museum in the US, numerous websites, pictures from around the world - continues to be discounted out of hand, without consideration, by others who, without validity, cite terms like "neologism," "original research," and "weasel phrases." The voluminous content available at the links I've provided counters these arguments, rendering them untenable, at best. Perhaps wiki should give their budding administrators a course in [Paraconsistent logic] before unleashing them at the masses. However, I believe it would be more appropriate to simply train them to the point where they realize that just because they encounter something either different to their way of thinking, or beyond their realm of experience, doesn't necessarily make it wrong, "neologistic," a "weasel phrase" (who neologisized this piece?), or in any other manner unacceptable.
Furthermore, posting blanket, unsupported statements concerning relevancy which fly in the face of millions of Google hits (hidden behind claims for far fewer hits when using the most restrictive search terminology) is shysterism, at best, an attempt to weasel unsupportable opinions as to an articles relevancy simply because the individual has personal biases against it due to their limited exposure to the normal practices and cultures of other Wikipedians.
Put simply, different/unfamiliar is NOT wrong/unacceptable/neologism/weasel/etc. It's simply different.
Please take the time to educate yourself about issues with which you're unfamiliar before you wrongly assume your lack of familiarity equates with nonvalidity.
Wiki exists for us to expand our understanding of the world as it exists, in all it's variations. It doesn't exist for us to attempt to straight-jacket it into a narrow, conformalistic viewpoints which only mirror our own. "Most men like wearing pants, but many men enjoy wearing male unbifurcated garments" is a true statement. Claiming it's not doesn't make it false. Undermining the article by claiming neologism doesn't make it false either, nor do the erroneous accusations concerning weaseling. Again, the links are there.
But I'm not your mama, and I won't hold your hand. It's up to you to take the time to thoroughly explore the links. When you do so you'll discover there's a whole different world out there, as I did, not only online in the late 1990s, but also throughout the many visits I've made to more than 30 different countries, seeing all manners of style and dress, since my first visit to another country back in 1992.
I'm a Westerner, to be sure, but I'm a well-travelled one, and I simply ask that you please don't automatically pull the trigger on the vast wealth of everything else that's out there. This isn't a video game, folks. It's not about how he/she who pulls the trigger faster/better/with the best weapons win. My God, I hope this isn't the paradigm into which we've degenerated! So much would be lost!
Instead, I hope, and have to trust, that people take the time and effort to learn about others who're different from them, giving it at least a few weeks, if not months. In time, I hope you'll realize, as I have, that differences abound, yet throughout it all, people remain people. They seek friendships, comradery, and love. Belonging is one of Maslow's critical needs, and although I personally believe Maslow has half the pyramid in ruins, I also believe he's a genius for having identified our needs in this fashion.
Well, all in all, I'm headed downtown in about half an hour, where I'll be relaxing in a men's skirt with my buds at the bar, at least two of them who'll probably be similarly clad, and NO, we're not gay (the chicks dig us and guys think we're cool).
Clearly it is a waste of time talking to you, since you are apparently not even on the same planet as the rest of us in this discussion. To repeat one more time: the term male unbifurcated garment is of very limied currency, apparently restricted to kiltmen and a few fellow-travellers. You can react in one of two ways: find a more valid term under which the article can exist, or watch it being deleted. All that you have written above amounts to a restatement of a case, rather than showing any eviodence that you have understood why this article is problematic per policy, as pointed out by multiple editors. Just zis Guy you know?21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but what point have you in such derrogatory comments? "Not even on the same planet?" Are you serious? I've lived in 3 countries and visited more than 30. I've been all over this planet, and have seen far more than most, much of which I'm attempting to convey to those who're obviously far less world-travelled than I. Please clarify your comments, or consider them fodder for expulsion.
Again, the term "male unbirfurcated garment," in it's various forms achived millions of Google hits, and is by no means in the minds of rational individuals to be considered as anything but mainstrean. I hear friends and neighbors which have absolutely nothing to do with this movemement using the term. Where did they get it from, if I didn't tell them? Probably picked it up from mainstream society, as did the girl I met at the bar last Friday, who said, "Oh, so you're wearing a MUG! Cool!" I asked her where she'd heard the term "MUG" and she said, "The Internet, as well as the other guys around here that sometimes wear skirts."
Why you Wiki administrators continue to persist that your rather myopic, limited lifestyles somehow comprise VAST SUMS OF KNOWLEDGE that flies in the face of daily reality is beyond me. In fact, it's beyond belief, if not beyond reality. One questions whether you have any visibility into reality at all, or whether you're trying to recreate a "Leave it to Beaver" mentality through Wiki.
Leave it to history, instead. Realize fashion changes, but in the case of MUGs, it's the same as it ever was (David Byrnes), with men wearing male unbifurcated garments the same as they've worn them for many tens of thousands of years.
This is our planet, and it's called Earth, North, South, East, and West. I'm beginning to become curious as to which planet you're from.
The way these admins behaved was unfair they are just heckbent on having there way. The article should not die though , let's move it to the fork of wikipedia which lets us put across the sympathetic point of view , I knw this isn't the best this article deserves , but well probably someday it can get another chance here when MUG becomes a word of daily usage and mate surely that can't take too long.
Unitedroad09:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you're grossly overreacting, particularly your use of the Stop Hand, references to "personal attacks," and "edit wars." As per Wiki rules, no one, including editors, has the right to edit content to suit their personal desires of "how things ought to be." All Wikipedians, including the editors, have the responsibility to ensure that all posted content is factual and objective.
However, in deference to your accusations, I've removed personal references, as I've every desire to remain well within Wiki's standards of civility. I call into question, however, the "civil" yet errant removal of articles that do not meet the admins' personal criteria for "relevance" that nevertheless, remain relevant to hundreds of thousands of people in one case, and billions of people in another. Claiming "irrelevance" in the face of reality is indeed the height of ignorance.
Bear in mind that point out someone's ignorance in a particular subject is NOT a "personal attack." It's merely a comment on their lack of knowledge in that area, and is particularly relevant when the individual, particularly admins, substantiates their decision to remove an article by citing information that's clearly in error. Saying it's stupid would indeed be a personal attack. Citing ignorance, however, merely calls into question the validity of and justification for their actions. As has often been said, "People don't know what they don't know." Most people love to believe they're experts on things when quite often they're not only not experts, what little information they do posses is wrong. That's ignorance, nothing more, nothing less. It's not a personal attack. It's merely a statement highlighting their lack of knowledge, contrary to their own self-proclaimations otherwise. Dr181914:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but calling them "ranting" and "idiots" is certainly less than what I would expect from a fellow editor. At any rate, thank you for trying to amend your statements, but according to our practices for discussion pages, you shouldn't overwrite them, but strike them out and add new comments below. I've reverted the overwriting and explained this on the AfD page. Sandstein13:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
, Sandstein. If you'd like to revert your own comments, go right ahead. But as the author of my own comments, I reserve the right to edit my own content, particular when it's less than two minutes from when I first posted it. Thank you. Dr1819 15:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC) <--- Or even days later so as to properly annotate my name because I forgot to use the four tildes! Dr181915:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever considered listening to and going along with the comments and suggestions of more experienced editors? Wikipedia is not Usenet or any other forum. It is quite unlike most other sites on the net. As has been noted on the latest AfD, you are rapidly approaching the point at which you need to either learn and accept Wikipedia's way of doing things, or leave. Seriously. Just zis Guy you know?16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response In a minute I will exhaustively defend the inclusion of this article in Wiki using Wiki's rules while highlighting the numerous logical fallacies used to argue against it, most of which have come from the Wiki admins themselves.
I'll overlook your swearing at me, JZG, if you could point out how you think it can be fixed! Perhaps an example of a "fixed" article would go a long way towards improving mine. Thanks! Dr181913:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can fix it by providing verifiable citations to multiple reliable sources (e.g. mainstream print media) which attest to the significance of the men's fashiopn freedom movement. What you have provided so far is some evidence that some people do some things which the movement supports, but not that these people associate themselves with the movement. Same with "MUG" - you provided evidence that men wear kilts, but not that those men who wear kilts call them MUGs. This has been said before. What Wikipedia needs, per policy, is evidence that there is sufficient coverage of the movement in neutral and reliable secondary sources to allow us to verify that it is being covered neutrallly. As to your background, I care less than not at all. Even if you were a Pulitzer prize winner, your behaviour would still be wrong, and your articles would still be problematic, and until you start to try to understand why, they probably always will be. Wikipedia is not like other websites. It takes a while for some new editors to learn this. Just zis Guy you know?16:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, Juszisguy, I would appreciate your not speaking to me in such a demeaning manner. You're undoubtedly unaware aware that I've published several books, numerous magazine (printed) articles about a wide variety of topics, and have been, continue to be paid for writing for more than fifteen years? Were you aware that I was a systems administrator for ARPANET, a decade before it evolved into the Internet? That I've created and admined six different websites (and earlier eBBSes) since 1986, and that I'm currently an admin on three, that I've adminned on more than 15 over the last twenty years, that I've been editing other people's works for publication, including technical, social, psychological, and travel for the last five years as a senior editor? That I've authored more than thirty forum's rules, from scratch, most of which remain standing to this day, simply because of my decades of experience in numerous online commmunities? That I'm a frequent contributor to the IEEE, the standards board which governs much of how the Internet is run, through my RFCs (Requests for Comment)?
Put simply, while I may not be a Wiki admin, I'm far, far more experienced, in both depth and breadth, than the vast majority of you, according to your own bios. Perhaps, if your egos will allow, it's time you take a step back and start listening to someone who's considerably more experienced than yourself. For the record, Justzisguy, I always listen to other people's opinions, regardless of their experience. When their arguements hold validity in the light of my experience in this Arena, I'll act on the basis of their arguements, recanting myself without reservation. If I don't back down, it's because I've encountered this situation before, usually from several perspectives, and know, based on the facts at hand and Wiki's posted rules, that I'm dead-on. If I weren't, I wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as I am.
Getting back to the issue at hand, the arguements against keeping Men's Fashion Freedom and earlier, Male Unbifurcated Garments, simply don't hold water. Period. The arguements supporting deletion were comprised largely of the most basic, non-logical attempts at persuasion known to those familiar with the rudiments of logical discourse. More to the point, they (your arguements included), contained many errors of logical discourse (noted below) which rendered them unfit for consideration. Nevertheless, a Wiki admin who was apparently unfamiliar with both logical discourse as well as the well-publicized Wiki rules for criteria for article deletion, deleted the article anyway, apparently solely on the basis of the fact that this admin had both never heard of the issue before, and, saw the several illegitimate (illogical and contra-Wiki criteria) postings of mere opinions by others who are very ill-informed with respect to the Men's Fashion Freedom Movement (and earlier, Male Unbifurcated Undergarments) as confirming of his/her personal opinion.
Personal opinions have no room in an encyclopedia, Justzisguy.
Here are the elements of logical discourse which you and others have grossly violated during your opposition of Men's Fashion Freedom and Male Unbifurcated Undergarments:
1.
anthrocentric (human-centered) fallacy -- This involves a presupposition level whereby human language, reason, instincts, and desires are assumed to be the orbit around which everything else in the universe revolve. Stated in a first person point of view, "If I don't know about it, then it doesn't exist."
appeal to authority -- Known also as the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. Wiki admins are human beings. Many human beings possess a considerably greater breadth and depth of knowledge than many Wiki admins (yes, true...). Therefore, the opinion of a Wiki admin with respect to keep or delete an article is highly suspect to begin with. It may very well be that the Wiki admin gained his/her position because he/she got long well with others, rather than his/her ability to accurately and objectively content (which usually produces more conflict than average, not less).
arguing from "is" to "ought" -- A fallacy first articulated by David Hume (1711-1776) in which someone argues from a premise containing only a descriptive term, to a conclusion containing an "ought." Example: "There is nothing morally wrong with the institution of slavery. It has been with us in some form for thousands of years." (The fact that slavery has been with us or is with us is not moral justification of the act. What is may not be the same thing as what ought to be.) Put in modern terms, "There is nothing wrong with the concept of men wearing nothing below the beltline except for pants and low-heeled shoes. That's what men have done for the last hundred years or so, so it's the way things ought to be."
argumentum ad baculinum -- Fallacy that occurs when threat of force is made, either implicitly or explicitly. Example: "I'm willing to discuss this in even more depth, but if you don't come around soon, there may be dire consequences." (Baculum from the Latin means "stick".) This illogical arguement raised it's head within the last 24 hours, when Justzisguy said, "you are rapidly approaching the point at which you need to either learn and accept Wikipedia's way of doing things, or leave. Seriously." This certainly sounds like a veiled threat to me, with the unstated portion being, "if you don't agree with what I say, then I'll delete you." I sincerely hope Wikipedia has employed enough forethought to prevent any single adminstrator from taking such drastic action on the basis of personal bias, particularly in light of the voluminous evidence surrounding the two aforementioned issues. If I'm deleted, I'll take this entire page (it is, after all, my page...), and submit it to publications worldwide to clearly demonstrate to all students of critical thought how even a decent concept such as Wiki can go awry when people are given sufficient power without first having tested them for the appropriate credentials (such as even a basic understanding of logic, critical thinking, etc.).
argumentum ad captandum -- Any specious or unsound argument that is likely to win popular acceptance. (literally, "for catching the common herd"). Comments like "This is absurd - delete immediately" fall squarely into this category and should entirely ignored, as they have absolutely no basis in logical discourse, whatsoever.
argumentum ad crumenam -- The fallacy of supposing that a conclusion must be valid because the person making the argument is wealthy. (Crumena from the Latin means "purse".) An instance of this fallacy is when someone turns to another and says, "Well, if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" One can be both smart and poor, as indeed numerous philosophers throughout history were (e.g., Lao-Tzu, Socrates, Spinoza). This has only a slight application with respect to my articles, and only because Wiki itself his highly touted (whether deserved or not). Most people conclude that since Wiki is highly touted, it's admins must also be highly touted (incapable of error). Sadly, entire communities have sprung up on the Internet because Wiki admins are not only not incapable of error, but because they quite often err without knowing it. Apparently, Wiki admins are elected by the masses. This doesn't work in business, as the publications would quickly go out of business. Instead, successful editors are appointed for their ability to be objective, fair-minded, and open-minded, while at the same time being able to tailor articles for appropriate content based upon the publisher's criteria. In the 1.5 years that I've been resourcing Wiki, I've seen numerous articles that were unfactual, violating sound, and well-established standards of publishing. I've also seen several articles containing detailed, quite specific and verifiable information that suffered severely, to the point of deletion, simple because enough of the ignorant witch-hunting masses railed against it. I thank God I'm an American, not a member of Salem, MA.
argumentum ad hominem ("argument against the person") -- A common fallacy in which someone argues against a position or claim by assailing the proponent of it. The truth or falsehood of a position doesn't depend on who does (or doesn't) espouse it. e.g. "You can't trust Jones' theory of electromagnetic particles because he's a communist." (The theory is good or bad because it comports (or doesn't comport) with certain facts and evidence, not because the man propounding it holds a political affiliation.) On at least one occasion (possibly two, but the author appears to have deleted it) my articles have been recommended for deletion because of my personal preferences.
argumentum ad ignorantiam ("arguing from ignorance") -- A fallacy that occurs when someone argues that because we don't know something is true, it must be false, or because we lack proof that a statement is false, it must be true. Ignorance or lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean a position or claim is true or false. Common Examples: "No one has ever proven that UFOs exist. Therefore, they don't exist." (Something can exist despite the absence of confirmation. Lack of proof is justification for caution or even scepticism, but not dogmatic assertions.) "There is simply no proof that God exists. Therefore, God doesn't exist." (God might exist even though there is no way empirically to prove it.)
This is by far the most scathing crevasse in the arguements to date, and is the justification for my using the term "ignorant." A person can have an IQ of 160 and yet be ignorant. The term "ignorant" is no reflection on the personal capabilities of the individual. It's simply stating that they don't know what they're talking about. Ignorance is NOT a personal attack. In fact, numerous psychological tests over the last 20 years reveal that most people believe they know a great deal more about things than they actually do. The conclusions are invariably that "most people are ignorant about most things," hence my earlier recommendation that if people aren't fully versed in Men's Fashion Freedom they should refrain from commenting about whether or not it should be deleted. By all means, comment on articles on which you're the expert, but please refrain from slamming articles simply because you've never heard of the issue.
argumentum ad lazarum -- The fallacy of supposing a conclusion is valid because the argument is made by a poor person. It is the opposite of the ad crumenam fallacy. Haven't seen this particular arguement here. However, I have seen a variant of it, which I would call (in my non-existent capacity for Latin), "arguementum ad Foreigner." In this capacity, one of my articles was successfull (yet wrongly) deleted for little other reason than the principle advocate for it's deletion was from Africa. As an assumed "world-wide travellor" (I guarantee you I've been to three times as many countries as she has, and probably over just twice as many years), she swayed the unsuspecting readers and admins into deleting an article about a topic that found a very wide readership around the world (literally millions of men read the article, and billions of men participated in the tenets of the article). Yet the article was deleted anyway, ironically, for "non-relevance!"
argumentum ad misericordiam -- Occurs when an appeal is made to pity or to one's sympathetic nature. Example: "Augusto Pinochet is an old, dying man. It is wrong to make him stand trial for alleged offenses." I do not believe I've seen this in relation to my articles. Next topic...
argumentum ad populum -- This fallacy occurs when an argument panders to popular passion or sentiment. When, for instance, a politician exclaims in a debate that his opponent "is out of step with the beliefs of everyone in the audience," he/she is committing the fallacy. The legitimacy of a statement depends not on its popularity, but on its truth credentials. Uh... How does one say this politely? This is the principle failing of Wiki. On one hand, "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" sounds very enticing, but from a more objective opinion, does this really result in any increase in accuracy of the information or the relevancy of the articles contained herein? Of course not. The only result is that information accurately reflects the majority of society (not reality), and that what information is included either, at best, accurately reflects society (given non-confrontational information), or at worst, reflects the prejudices and misunderstandings of society. I wonder what the Russion people of the 1960s would have written about the Wiki topic Americans if said topic had existed in the 1960s? Even today, North Koreans are severely biased due to the extremely tight information control of the government over it's people. There's a very severe lack of objective understanding of world peoples, economies, and events among the people of North Korea. To a lesser extent, the same can be said of the West with respect to what men and women do and wear throughout the rest of the world. I can walk through the cities of most streets around the world wearing a t-shirt, a sarong, and sandals, and no one bats an eye. But when I do that in the U.S., all kinds of heads turn. Are Americans (I'm an American, BTW) right? No - but they are ignorant of what goes beyond their borders. Again, emphasis for my many comments with respect to Wiki not being a US product, but being a GLOBAL product. The U.S. population is just 1/17th that of the world population, and men's style of clothing around the world has little to do with anything except sheer numbers of what people like to wear.
argumentum ex silentio -- The fallacy of supposing that someone's silence is necessarily proof of ignorance. Two people, for instance, may be debating a political issue on a cable news program. One may be in the studio with the host, the other appearing via satellite. Their time on air reaches the point when each only has a few seconds left to make a closing comment. One of the debaters asks his opponent a very technical, complex question, and the opponent is speechless for a few seconds. "Go ahead," the debater screams. "Answer my question! See? He can't answer." A viewer may be left with the impression that the person's speechlessness is tantamount to ignorance, when in fact any number of things could have happened: 1) the satellite connection could've been lost or experiencing problems; 2) the debater was thinking about how best to answer a difficult question under such an immediate time constraint; 3) the debater might not have even heard the whole question. There may be reasons for temporary silence other than ignorance.
In short, I may not have been able to respond in a timely manner to your arguements, or perhaps there've been so many arguements that I've not had the chance to get to them all. If so, I apologize, and ask that you refrain from considering my lack of response as an "argumentum ex silentio."
begging the question -- Circular reasoning in which a claim is assumed to be true and is then tucked in the conclusion. e.g. "Government by the people is ideal because democracy is the least inadequate form of government." ("Government by the people" is the working definition of democracy; the first part of the statement needs to be proven, not reasserted in the predicate.). In terms of Men's Fashion Freedom, at least one person claimed, "if this were such a fad, everyone would be doing it." The fact that "everyone is doing it (men wearing skirts)," but just not in the U.S., means nothing, for Wiki is a global resource, not just a Western (or merely a U.S.) resource.
circular reasoning -- Sometimes known as circulus in demonstrando, or begging the question. H.W. Fowler, in Modern English Usage, puts it this way: "The basing of two conclusions each upon the other. That the world is good follows from the known goodness of God; that God is good is known from the excellence of the world he has made." Personally, I find this a poor definition of circular reasoning, overlapping the first considerably, so I'll refer you to the previous entry.
equivocation -- Sometimes referred to as "amphiboly". A fallacy that stems from the ambiguous meaning of certain words. For example, 1. Only man is logical. 2. No woman is a man. 3. Therefore, no woman is logical. "Man" in the first sentence really means "mankind," "humankind," "homo sapiens". "Man" in the second sentence means "maleness". The syllogism appears to be valid, but in fact is fallacious because of the subtle shift in meaning. The equivalence with respect to variations in men's fashion involves both the often-stated and more commonly unstated perception, "that's gay," when confronted by any form of fashion outside their comfort zone. The term "gay" is not ambiguous, and has absolutely no application with respect to men who wear clothes that men have worn for tens of thousands of years. Polls show that there's a slightly higher percentage of straight men among those who wear alternative fashions than among the general public at large, further undermining this particular arguement.
fallacy of false alternatives -- A fallacy occurring when the number of alternatives is said to be fewer/less than the actual number. Common examples of this fallacy are statements containing either/or, nothing/but, all-or-nothing elements. Examples: "Is she a Democrat or a Republican?" (She may be a socialist, a libertarian, a Leninist, an anarchist, a feminist or any number of other things, including one who is strictly apolitical.) "If you aren't for your country, then you are against it." (One may be neither "for" nor "against" but may occupy a position of strict neutrality or be affirmative sometimes and critical at others.) This arguement has been used most often by Justzisguy, particular during comments such as "you are rapidly approaching the point at which you need to either learn and accept Wikipedia's way of doing things, or leave." As described in detail above, my articles adhere to "Wikipedia's way of doing things" significantly better than many long-term Wiki articles that are not on the chopping block, ostensibly because certain Wiki admins don't find them personally distasteful.
fallacies of interrogation -- There are two forms of this particular fallacy. One is asking two or more questions and demanding a single answer when, in fact, each question might require separate treatment. The other form is asking a question whose answer would necessitate acceptance of a presupposition, one which the answerer might separately deny. The famous example of this second form is asking, "Do you still beat your wife?" Answering "no" legitimates the question and does nothing to contradict the presupposition that the husband once did beat his wife. Asking a question with presuppositions is fine so long as a narrow answer is not demanded. This arguement is also commonly referred to as asking "leading questions." To date, I've not seen a clear-cut case that I can recall associated with this particular topic.
flamboyance -- The manner in which someone speaks can easily draw unwarranted support for a thesis or idea. Incisive wit, verbal facility, equanimity and repartee have no bearing at all on the soundness/legitimacy of a position. It is the essence of what is said, not the manner in which it is said, that counts. As Bertrand Russell once noted, the purpose of being educated is to defend ourselves against the seductions of eloquence. Numerous examples of flamboyance have been exhibited in others' posts calling for deletion, primarily one-liners with absolutely no substantial arguement to them at all. Nevertheless, Wiki admins were subjected to arguements of flamboyance, and as a result, deleted the previous article I wrote, and appear ready to delete the article in question, as well, again, not for the sake of arguement, but for the sake of appearance.
genetic fallacy -- A fallacy that occurs when someone attacks the cause or origin of a belief rather than its substance. Why a person believes something is not relevant to the belief's legitimacy/soundness/validity. Example: "Smith's belief in God stems from a subsconscious need for a fatherly figure and is thus a total joke." (The psychological link may in fact be true and may even shed some light on the personality of Smith, but is nevertheless irrelevant to the truth/falsehood of his belief.) The corollary is also true, that a person's disbelief of an issue is not relevant to the legitimacy of that issue. This corollary covers many of the responses calling for deletion of the article.
hasty generalization -- The habit of arriving at a bold conclusion based on a limited sample of evidence. This often occurs with statistics. For instance, someone may ask ten women and one man what their opinion is of contemporary male-female relationships and from this sample draw a sweeping conclusion; hasty generalization would then be said to exist. This concept grossly undermines the validity of using Google hits as a measure of the validity of an article. I'm not sure how this practice crept into Wiki, but Wiki rules do not support this practice at all. The only criteria for validity has to do with verifiability, and the Men's Fashion Freedom movement has been verified by literally hundreds of direct and indirect links to content provided by tens of thousands of the more active proponents of Men's Fashion Freedom, as well has having been published in highly reputable periodicals such as the Los Angeles (LA) Times. At this point, denying the article's verifiability is akin to denying the sky is blue - all one has to do is look up. I can't help it if you're so fanatically against the article that you close your eyes and refuse to peruse any of the numerous links I've provided, continue to deny that any exist, or that they're somehow flawed without providing detailed analysis of who/what/where/why/how/when (another fallacious arguement violating rules of logical discourse).
if-then fallacies -- 1. Affirming the consequent (If P, then Q. Q. Therefore P.). 2. Denying the antecedent (If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore not Q.) 3. Converting a conditional (If P, then Q. Therefore if Q, then P.) 4. Negating antecedent and consequent (If P, then Q. Therefore if not P, then not Q.). This arguement has often been used unintentionally concerning this issue, usually by, "If this were a real issue, I would have heard about it before now." Simply fallacious, as any quick perusal through Wiki's Random Article feature will demonstrate there are many, many valid articles out there about which you've never heard. Lack of familiarity has absolutely nothing to do with validity. The underlying mechanism behind your and others' bents in this direction is instead due to your personal dislike/distate for the article. If the converse were true, you'd be hunting through Random articles like mad, recommending those which which you're unfamiliar for deletion.
ignoratio elenchi ("ignoring of the disproof") -- A fallacy that consists in disproving or proving something different from what is in question or called for. It can also be called the irrelevance fallacy. Example: "You cannot convict my client of murder. We have proven that one of the arresting officers made prejudicial remarks, remarks scornful of my client. Look at the videotape, the audiotape, the man's own testimony. He is a full-blown racist; you must not trust anything he says." (Undermining an allegation of murder is something different than proving that one member of the plaintiff's team is bigoted; hence, the i.e. fallacy here.). Sadly, this arguement has also crept into the discussion, in part with respect to the number of Google hits (logically irrelevant with respect to the validity of an arguement based on posted Wiki rules), and in part with respect to the nature of the issue itself, which is outside the comfort zone for most Westerners.
invincible ignorance -- the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of one's position in the face of contradictory facts. Statements like "I really don't care what the experts say; no one is going to convince me that I'm wrong"; "nothing you say is going to change my mind"; "yeah, okay, whatever!" are examples of this fallacy. This is the most common arguement put forth by the admins emphasizing the deletion of both articles. It's also commonly referred to as "strength of an idea," in that concepts foreign to someone's previous experience or train of thought can't possibly be true. This is what kept most of the world outside of America from believing the reports that the Wright brothers actually flew a heavier than air aircraft, for no other reason than "it couldn't possibly be true." Numerous competant scientists and engineers staked their reputations on it. Nevertheless, they were wrong, not because of their lack of technical expertise, but because of their lack of understanding with respect to the way they, and others, arrive at conclusions about various issues in life.
naturalistic fallacy -- From the Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "What G.E. Moore called the naturalistic fallacy is the identifying of goodness with any natural characteristic, such as pleasantness or being the object of desire." As the tendancy here is to equate this issue with something most consider to be foreign, this fallacy doesn't apply.
non sequitur ("it does not follow") -- A statement that does not logically follow from what preceded it; a conclusion that does not follow from the premises. Most people are familiar with this concept, so I'll let the more adept spot the numerous non sequitors mentioned in support of deletion.
paralogism -- Any fallacious or illogical argument generally. Again, quite numerous, and even among two supports to keeping the article (just trying to be fair!).
poisoning the wells -- This entry comes from an article by Albury Castell titled "Analyzing A Fallacy," which was included in the book Readings In Speech, edited by Haig Bosmajian (Harper & Row, 1965). Here is the full quote: "During the last century a famous controversy took place between Charles Kingsley and Cardinal Newman. It began, I believe, by Kingsley suggesting that truth did not possess the highest value for a Roman Catholic priest; that some things were prized above truth. Newman protested that such a remark made it impossible for an opponent to state his case. How could Newman prove to Kingsley that he did have more regard for truth than for anything else, if Kingsley argued from the premiss that he did not? It is not merely a question of two persons entertaining contradictory opinions. It is subtler than that. To put it baldly, Newman would be logically 'hamstrung.' Any argument he might use to prove that he did entertain a high regard for truth was automatically ruled out by Kingsley's hypothesis that he did not. Newman coined the expression poisoning the wells for such unfair tactics...The phrase poisoning the wells exactly hits off the difficulty. If the well is poisoned, no water drawn from it can be used. If a case is so stated that contrary evidence is automatically precluded, no arguments against it can be used." Put simply, comments demeaning the articles validity without offering any proof of non-validity fall into this category, particularly if the issue is cast in a negative light in any way.
post hoc, ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") -- This might also be described as the causality fallacy: Event Y follows from Event X, so one automatically concludes that X caused Y. (A young kid walks by a neighbor's house and sees a cat scurrying away; he looks up and sees a giant hole in the window. The hole, he infers, must have been caused by the cat, who fell through the pane. The inference is hasty, because the hole might have been caused by any number of things -- a baseball that missed a friend's glove and flew over his head; young brothers fighting inside and accidentally smashing the window, etc.). This speaks squarely to the Google hits fallacy - "If it doesn't have many Google hits, it can't be relevant." Google hits for other Wiki articles considered far more relevant than this one are nevertheless far less numerous.
red herring -- An attempt to divert attention away from the crux of an argument by introduction of anecdote, irrelevant detail, subsidiary facts, tangential references, and the like. Like many logicall fallacies, this one overlaps others. I'll leave it to the reader to apply a few brain cells and determine where (hint: several itmes listed at the top of this section qualify).
straw man -- A fallacy that occurs when someone attacks a less defensible position than the one actually being put forth. This occurs very often in politics, when one seeks to derive maximum approval for himself/herself or for a cause. Example: "Opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement amounts to nothing but opposition to free trade." (Someone can believe in free and open trade and yet still oppose NAFTA.) Again, evident, and left to the reader to discover.
tu quoque ("you too") fallacy -- The fallacy of assuming an argument is specious because it is either inconsistent with the person's actions or inconsistent with previous claims/arguments. A person may "preach" about something and act in a very different manner, but this fact has no bearing on the specific argument he is advancing at any time. Inconsistency, moreover, may raise issues of hypocrisy or double standards, but it does not bear upon the argument at hand. Example: "Smith: If someone hits you, you should turn the other cheek. Violence only begets violence, and violence in and of itself is wrong. Jones: That's a joke. You used to hit people when they picked a fight with you." (Smith may not have practiced what he now preaches, but two of his premises -- that violence only begets violence, and that violence is wrong -- need to be carefully examined.) As I've not differed in my presentation of the subject, this fallcy does not apply.
undistributed middle -- A fallacy of the form "All A are B. All C are B. Therefore, all A are C." Consider: All elms are trees. All oaks are trees. Therefore, all elms are oaks. The correct course of logic is "All A are B. All B are C. Therefore, all A are C." In more relevant terms, "All Buicks are cars. All cars are vehicles. Therefore, all Buicks are vehicles." However, this fallacy has not been apparent here.
Long night - one I really don't care to repeat. I'd rather spend the time gathering information for valid articles than defend them against the illogical arguements, prejudices, and inexperiences of others. 84.166.156.13121:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Guidance on Civility
Thank you for posting the link, FloNight. I found it quite revealing, particularly the part which gives as a "More Serious Example" the following:
Calling for bans and blocks
In light of this, I respectfully request that you cease your uncivility towards me.
Thank you.
And in the No Personal Attacks page, I found the following under Examples that are not personal attacks:
Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.
Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user.
Therefore, my disagreement with the opinions of others, even admins, is not a personal attack.
Again, I must ask that you cease misconstruing it as such. Rather, it adheres solidly to a key Wiki principle, found in the same section: "Wikipedians engaging in debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia."
Please take my comments in the spirit they have been given - that of debate which spurs others to think more carefully, and critically (as in critical thinking), such that the decisions made herein are based upon information while personal biases and beliefs are left at the door.
You really are starting to look very foolish here. An administrator like FloNight does not call for bans or blocks, an administrator warns that if problem behaviour does not cease, bans or blocks will ensue. FloNight's text was a standard warning. One you would do well to heed. Just zis Guy you know?16:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am being very polite here in the face of primarily just one Admin who continues to harrass me unceasingly. You, JzG. Stop. Most don't agree with you. You're in the Rogue Admin Cabal for a reason. Check out the only line beginning with "Upon" as well as the line immediately below in one of the last two links you provided me to discover why. Dr181919:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let people get on with their lives, spending time improving Wiki content instead of answering ridiculous assertions. Dr181919:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you are refusing to acknowledge that points made against you have any validity. Why? Are you really that arrogant? Several editors in good standing have registered concern regarding your conduct, you would do well to at least accept that this may have some validity according to the mores of this project (which are quite different from most web-based projects). In the end, it should not matter to me - if you carry on as you are you will be blocked sooner or later, but that won't impact on my contributions to the project in any measurable way. As it happens, though, I don't want to see you blocked. What I want is for you to calm down to the point where you see what it is you are doing that pisses people off, and learn from it. I am very keen to encourage editors who are past puberty, there are not enough grey hairs on this project. But if you want to treat the project like Usenet, where a point can be gained by default simply by arguing until everyone else gives up, then you are making a fundamental error. I don't think that would accurately describe your view, but you are beginning to undermine my notorious Mary Poppins tendencies. Other admins would have blocked you long since, and accusing admins of incivility because they issue standard warnings really is the kind of behaviour which has no good result. Wikipedia is different. It is not like other websites and forums. It is an encyclopaedia, not a Myspace, and the inclusion criteria are laid down by policies and guidelines. If your evidence is rejected, do not simply keep re-stating it, bring better evidence. Or recognise that maybe those with more experience of this particular project have a better idea of what is appropriate to this particular project. In respect of DRV, I am sorry to say that your own behaviour was almost certainly the largest determining factor for some of those who endorsed dleetion. Meditate on that for a while, if you would. You may, of course, ignore all of this, as you have ignored most of my substantive points to you thus far.
Do remember, too, that I was elected as an admin by a landslide; people around here do seem to think that I have at least some understanding of how the project does and should work. The rouge admin cabal is a joke. I was instrumental in starting it. Read the article again and see the irony dripping from every word. You state that a majority support you, and not me: you are demonstrably wrong - one AfD and two DRVs say so in unambiguous terms. Your most vociferous supporter is an "inclusionist" (i.e. one who is opposed on principle to the deletion of any content which is not obvious vandalism); the arguments against you follow policy and guideline, where you merely wave tyour arms and shout the same words only louder. Listen to Stephen Streater, he has been on the receiving end of deletions, too, and his response was to learn from the experience. Stephen is now a model editor and in my view it's only a matter of time before he will be an admin. His article is back in main space, with exactly the kind of references I've talked about to you before now. Just zis Guy you know?13:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The plethora of your comments, JzG, strongly corroberates the fact that you have a bone to pick that goes way beyond any disagreements which we appear to have over article content. In case you haven't read my response to your straw-man's RfC (do not ever again make the mistake of thinking I'm either stupid or incapable of monitoring your activities), I'm no longer debating issues involving alternative men's fashions on Wiki because of the personal biases and prejudices that are grossly apparent therein. Thankfully, your own responses have corroborated the extent of your own personal issues. I appreciate your taking the time to post them, and have recorded them elsewhere for future use, should you choose to delete them without qualification from my talk page. Dr181923:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely correct, I have a bone to pick with you. You are taking things way too personally and refusing point blank to engage with the criticisms made against you and some of your edits. Worse, you are attacking those who try point out to you where you are going wrong so you can fix the problem, and then attacking them again because the problem remains unresolved (because you refuse to acknowledge it exists). Yup, I have a real problem with that. And with your repeated assertions that it is those who demand verifiable evience, not you, who are pushing a POV. It's really hard to help someone who won't acknowledge that there is anything even slightly wrong with what they are doing. Oh, and I didn't start the RfC. Just zis Guy you know?10:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dr1819 you need to calm down and internalise that when admins give you a civility warning they are not themselves being incivil, but just doing what the community asks them to do, and that when a number of widely respected people tell you that you need to change your ways, you need to change them, not claim that they are out to get you. Wikipedia is vast and there is much to do. We do not have time for those that cannot or will not grasp this. Either change your ways or you will be facing blocking for incivility quite soon. The first block will be short, to get your attention, but repeated intransigence like you are exhibiting here will get you longer and longer blocks. We don't have time to waste, beyond a certain point, with users who don't get it. This is a warning to you from an admin, and it is direct, but not incivil, and if you cite it as incivil you will look even more intransigent. Internalise all this before it is too late, or face the consequences. ++Lar: t/c13:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is paramount that admins/sysops be intimately familiar with Wiki rules, policies, and guidelines, I would like to echo Wiki's Blocking Policy, particularly When blocking may not be used:
"Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute."
Again, thank you for adhering to Wiki policy.
As a completely uninvolved admin, I'd like to point out that your conduct is highly uncivil and seriously bordering on personal attacks. Please stop and find a polite way to contribute to the discussion or you may be blocked for disruption. If you have any questions, please let me know. Shell babelfish21:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a completely uninvolved admin, please consider the well-qualified and supported facts given in the previous section concerning the gross deviation from Wiki policy.
Policy exists for a reason, namely, to minimize disputes. Deviating from policy, particularly when it's admins who're doing the deviating, increases disputes, as clearly evidenced here. My calling these numerous deviations into question is entirely valid, and in and of itself meets absolutely no Wiki standards for "uncivility," much less "disruption." Case in point, how is it possibly "disruption" when it's in response to both unsupported claims and false misstatements of fact made by others about me on my own talk page? That's what the talk page is for, Shell. Furthermore, name-calling on your part also violates Wiki standards. If you are unable, or unwilling, to quality/justify your accusations, please post your comments on your own talk page. Thank you.
Please stick to the policy. And please note that I've been rather generous with polite and civil terms such as "please" and "thank you" in discussing this matter. So long as Wiki policy continues to be violated (by anyone), with respect to articles into which I've invested time and energy (regardless of who originally wrote it), I'll continue to reference those policy violations, comparing them directly with the stated Wiki policy itself. This is highly civil behavior, as the term "civil" involves active participation in civilation. Rolling over and playing dead isn't civil. Standing up for what's right, calling for a better adherence to the rules is very civil. Dr181913:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across the [WP:WIAGA] page while editing a technical arguement, and will be applying it's principles to the articles I've created or made significant contributions.
I have to ask, though - why all the negative comments about the article, but not a single link to this resource, even from the admins? Let's change our focus to bringing articles up to Wiki standards, rather than deleting topics about which we're unfamiliar or personally dislike. Thanks! Dr181914:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My brother lives in Japan, and the Japanese often wear kimonos for formal events. While the woman have light colours often with stunning embroidery, the men's kimonos are sober and black. You might like to mention this in the introduction on your user page. + Sig Stephen B Streater18:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you so much for offering your support. If you would like to help, both UniModal and Personal Rapid Transit are in need (tho PRT is much less in need). Basically, what I'm looking for at UniModal, is to discuss on the discussion page, what should be added. There is a large amount of content under the "Unverified or questionable information" header on UniModal's discussion page. A safe way of adding that content is to gain clear consensus before adding it. And I would very much appreciate your help in gaining consensus. Thanks! Fresheneesz20:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you're not interested in reviewing your behavior after so many editors have expressed their concerns. When one must make such a provacative comment as to compare touching "your" articles to the Salem Witch Trials, there is something seriously amiss. I will be opening an RfC on your behavior surrounding the men's fashion articles to gain the input of a wider community. Shell babelfish 01:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It's been four, not "so many," and only in conjunction with one topic. On the other topics I've posted, where I've used precisely the same care and diligence to ensure the accuracy and validity of content, there's been no such warning. It's precisely these misstatements of fact and personal attacks on my character that have prompted my responses. Or do you expect users to simply bow their heads when wrongfully attacked and slandered? Would you bow your head if wrongfully attacked and slandered? I think not. Dr181907:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Request for Comment is a good place to find out how to make your time at Wikipedia more productive. It will gather opinions from people who have not met you before and they will come with open minds. The people raising the issue are usually balanced later by people who will understand your position better, so it's worth stating this. Stephen B Streater07:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read your RfC response and as I'm not too familar with the history behind this, it would help if you could link to some edits to support your statements. All the offending edits should still be in the history, but you only need to use a few. I suggest specific edits to support these points you make:
[My] reputation ... has been called into question - this would qualify as a personal attack in violation of WP:NPA
... statements insinuating or directly assigning personal motives to me that are simply untrue - comments should refer to the article content, not the people
That admin posts so many vitriolic comments on my own [User talk:Dr1819 talk] page - this would violate WP:CIVIL
a very few users and admins ... [deleted] content without qualification or comment, including the many references I've posted supporting it's prevalence throughout the world - they are under no obligation to expain their actions, but unsupported edits often get reversed
I've been told I was being "uncivil" and exhibiting bad behavior, even at times when the only comment I had posted was a simple, polite disagreement with the statement of another.
The crux of this matter is that ... a handful .. have attacked me with reckless abandon, slandering my reputation - obviously not ideal Wikipedia behaviour.
Sadly, I have, but most of the supporting arguements have been deleted. Therein lies the problem! And black kettles are the ones calling the kettle black (a highly offensive and racially offensive term by the way, JzG)Dr181923:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can find all the edits in the edit history. When I look back I see a long debate and it is not clear which particular edits you see as falling into which category. Giving examples means that people can see how you see the debate unfolded, and they don't accidentally miss a major problem assuming that you are referring to a more minor one down the page. Stephen B Streater06:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Stephen - it's not the edits which are in question, it's my defense of the slandering of my character which has a very small subset of admins up in arms. Apparently these very few individuals are operating under the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality. There is a way for admins (described on the administrator's page) to totally delete content so that it cannot be retrieved. I know this has happened because I always save copies before I save the page, and some content has disappeared entirely from the history page, particularly the numerous references I've provided which substantiate MUG being a long and widely used term. Dr181912:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please just scroll above on my talk page for the examples you require. The vast majority of conflict centers around the talk pages, not the actual artical content. Unless the administrators have deleted or modified their content, the admin's vitriolic responses are available for all to see. Dr181915:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Stephen pointed out, its really important to include direct links to the posts you refer to in your statement, similar to the way I did on the opening of the RfC. We call those diffs - you can find out about them and how to create them hereHelp:Diff. Since the community at large won't generally go searching through talk pages on their own because of the shear amount of time that could take, it makes a tremendous difference to have those links when telling your side of the story. If I can do anything to help, please let me know. Also, if you'd like, you might want to engage an advocate at Wikipedia:Association_of_Members'_Advocates or more informally Wikipedia:Advocate_Cabal - these editors can assist you with the process. Shell babelfish16:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Shell - I've provided countless direct links (total of more that 200, to date) on numerous occasions, but my references continue to be deleted (super-deleted?) by aggressive editors and possibly admins. Dr181900:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears other Wiki admins have taken license to edit valid responses in their attempts to reshape history (shame, shell). Resposted below, after having been deleted by and admin in a manner in direct violation of Wiki policy governing the behavior of admins (as noted and voluminously recorded, including a snapshop of the original page) for potential future use):
The plethora of your comments, JzG, strongly corroberates the fact that you have a bone to pick that goes way beyond any disagreements which we appear to have over article content. In case you haven't read my response to your straw-man's RfC (do not ever again make the mistake of thinking I'm either stupid or incapable of monitoring your activities), I'm no longer debating issues involving alternative men's fashions on Wiki because of the personal biases and prejudices that are grossly apparent therein. Thankfully, your own responses have corroborated the extent of your own personal issues. I appreciate your taking the time to post them, and have recorded them elsewhere for future use, should you choose to delete them without qualification from my talk page. Dr181923:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Any continued abuse by admins against Wiki policy will result in those admin's behavior, as recorded in the their posts, changes (including Wiki "slight of hand" as have been recording in my corporation's Record of Wiki History), being reported to the appropriate governing authorities for arbitration and resolution dispute. Since Wikipedia, as a whole, cannot withstand any question of it's integrity, admins who continue to violate Wiki policy will be held accountable. Dr181923:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, are you accusing me of deleting your comments? If not, could you please clarify whom you're referring to having tried to reshape history? Shell babelfish03:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Shell. It was long before you entered the debate. I respectfully request that you re-read the part in bold, several lines above. Thank you. Dr181906:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the old chin up, DR1819. I reviewed everything I had time to review today, and posted my opinion on the RFC page. While it appears you did have some legitimate bones to pick, if I might suggest, perhaps simply ignoring antagonistic comments might be a better tack? You know, let them stand on their own so everyone can see them for what they really are? Just a thought. You did some great research on the MUG, by the way. Good luck, and hope to see you around Wiki. Mugaliens19:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on a more exhaustive list of published (book, newspaper, magazine) citations in support of MFF and MUGs that I hope will satisfy inquiring minds. Will post them as cited references in a reference section.
I continued editing with the same number of hours/entries as before, but put out the simple thought that I won't be touching very touchy subjects such as men wearing heels/skirts. As a result, the incredibly voluminous posts denouncing my "observed" behavior supposedly "countering Wiki policies," etc., have utterly disappeared.
Facts:
1. Same number of posts/changes per week.
2. Same volume of words/post.
3. Different subject matter (technical, rather than fashion-oriented).
4. A complete lack of commentary by any of the previously vehement commentators and admins.
Conclusions - The fashion police/admins (those who're one and the same, or those who're admins and who have personal biases against fashion norms beyond their immediate/local sphere of experience) remained quiet.
Ancillary conclusion - Since my posting style, references, sources, etc., remained the same, their earlier objections has absolutely nothing to do with what they erroneously stated (lack of supporting material, etc., blah, blah...), but rather, had everything to do with their personal prejudices, and they abused Wiki standards in an attempt to either bring me to bear, shut me down, or whatever (those of you who're actually honest with yourselves, please just fill in the blanks).
By their own responses, as well as the lack thereof over the last few weeks despite my continued and same-styled posting on topics outside their sphere of interest have highlighted their own biases. This tell-tale is not at all appropriate for someone posessing administrator status, and seriously highlights the need for a rabid review of admin status, qualifications, and oversight here at Wiki.
What can I say? I've been participating in the Internet since it was the DARPANET. I've seen these things come and go many times. Hopefully, you and the other Wiki admins have learned something, and will move on, the better for it, more able/capable to eliminate your personal biases in favor of reality.
Bro , I had msgd you some time back to shift MUG article on wikiinfo. I hope you're still interested. Waiting for your reply.
Unitedroad13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
