User talk:Loomis51

/Archive 2006

Happy New Year!

Have a trouble-free 2007 SCZenz! I hope you've enjoyed 2006. The sad thing is, though, that now we've got to wait until Easter for another big holiday. --Bowlhover 05:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fireworks in Bratislava, in 2005.

Israel in American Politics

Concerning the question you posed in the thread that was removed, it should be clear from the context that I was referring to the Six-day War and not the Yom Kippur War. Of course, no-one in the West realized at the time that the war was set off by a pre-emptive attack by Israel. Quite coincidentally, I was visiting Jewish friends at their home in Amsterdam when the news broke. My friends there were relatively calm and convinced that Israel could withstand the combined Arab forces, but not so their further Jewish friends, some of who were in complete panic. I remember this like it was yesterday. I later heard the situation in the US, or at least New York, was quite similar. I can't back up my idea that the Jewish constituency has a somewhat disproportionate weight in the considerations of the pols, although maybe I could dig up some material from the archives of the Revolutionary Worker :). But the "sympathy" for Israel of extreme Christians is, I'm fairly sure, a relatively new thing, much and much later than 1967. It has something to do with certain things involving Israel that must be fulfilled before the Second Coming.  --Lambiam^Talk 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Tiznit Military history of Finland during World War II Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Batar Meknes Chalcedon Foundation Section Thirteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Nador Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982 Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General) Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) Canadian Human Rights Act Military awards of World War II Mahe v. Alberta Official Languages Act (Canada) World War II cryptography Section Ten of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice)

Cleanup Hitzig v. Canada Civitatis international Marrakech Merge Palestinian economy MuchMoreMusic Western Sahara Authority Add Sources World War II in contemporary culture Misha'al of Saudi Arabia Military history of New Zealand during World War II Wikify Charter city Tougaloo College Spanish property bubble Expand Charles Leblond Religious persecution Freedom of assembly

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your personal assessment of Holocaust reparations

...on the recent Humanities Reference Desk query ("Israel foreign policy") while no doubt sincere, ill served the discussion. While it's clear that you took care to qualify this as the personal stance of yourself and your family, terms such as "large sums of cash" and "simply repugnant" [emphasis mine] are descriptions I wouldn't expect to find written in a public forum by one who declares affinity as a "proud Zionist." Reread what you wrote in the eyes of a Holocaust denier — or an ignorant reader likely to give credence to such — and perhaps you'll see what I mean. (Surely you've encountered the claims that the Jews staged the Holocaust to further their imperialist agenda, i.e. robbing the Palestinians of their homeland?) It also pains me because I know how such scorn for reparations as you express, has been internalized by impoverished, elderly survivors in Israel with a bleak quality of life below the poverty line, subsisting on the pittance provided by the National Insurance that's inadequate to cover their subsistence and health care needs. Therefore I implore you to exercise better caution in choosing your words on this and related topics. Then do read what I added underneath your comment, providing some encyclopaedic reference to how Nazi-era reparations to the Jewish people are being handled in part. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (a global-level worker in Holocaust commemoration, whose position is funded in part by the Claims Conference), 23:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:Civility violation warning

The adhominem attacks, insults, and metadiscussion between you and Clio the Muse on the Humanities Reference Desk have gone on too long. You engaged in violations of the civiliity requirements and launched personal attacks on Clio in your comments "And the mask finally comes off. MY GOD!. The above statement has got to be one of the most perverse, twisted, disgusting and appalling secretion of pure excrement I have ever had the misfortune of reading here on Wikipedia. "For the sake of some balance...[Israel was] a state which was itself partly built on terrorism"? Yes, I'm intimately aware of the activities of the Irgun. Yes they were a guerilla force. But please tell me where they ever, EVER used tactics involving the targetting of civilians to achieve their objectives. Please, as you say so often to others, DO SOME READING before you proceed to subject the rest of us to such a disgusting discharge of pure verbal diarrhea. The sheer ignorance and perversity of your statement is so disgustingly vile, and so openly anti-semitic...I'd say more, but I must be off to the bathroom to vomit."at [1]. Clio engaged in similar ranting in the "France was Germany" topic started January 28. I am not taking a side in this, except to say that both of you are engaging in behavior detrimental to the Reference Desk and to Wikipedia, and I am asking both of you to remove or redact you inappropriate remarks, insults, and metadiscussions from the Ref Desk, including the archives. I have opened a discussion of this on the Discussion page of the Reference Desk. Thanks. Edison 17:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude ...

Loomis, what has happened to you? I liked reading your elaborations when I had time :P (I think you might hold the record in longest average posts). Passionate, opionated, hot-headed, sometimes cranky, sometimes maybe even personal, but you never came across as the type who holds grudges or becomes mean-spirited.

I am very sorry to say this, but that's exactly how I read your posts, when you're criticizing Clio's (and only Clio's, no one else's) replies. All because of a snappy remark made 200'000 years ago. This is what is known as irrelevant history in the dramatic world of the internet. It's completely irrelevant.

You say you're acting in the encyclopedia and the questioners' best interests, but how can it be in anyone's interest to make these kind of personal attacks. You can present differing views or corrections as such and on topic. I sometimes think I get corrected more often than not at the reference desk, however, this actually does serve everyone, because the facts are set straight and other references are presented while the tone remains civil. Of course I'm sometimes embarassed when corrected, but that's my own vain little problem. Other than that, everyone wins, including myself, for having learned something new. Even when I believe it's a miscorrection, it's no big deal. Often someone else jumps in, or, if really necessary, you can always present more references (preferably for the reader's and not for the winning-the-argument's sake) and say that you stand by your comment.

The past weeks, on the other hand, you have repeatedly hinted and even plainly stated, that Clio's answers aren't to be trusted, because they are coming from Clio. This is ad hominem, and very unfair to Clio. If I got corrected that way at the reference desk, I wouldn't be posting there anymore. It seems that Clio is tougher than I am, but as you can see Clio too reacts sensitively to your criticism. You know this, and that's why it's called baiting. This is unpleasant to most of the desk's visitors, the only ones who get a kick out of it are those who adore the drama. Do you really want to entertain them?

Please, Loomis, cool off, somehow. You don't have to like Clio, you don't have to agree with Clio's answers, but can't you just move on, dammit? I realize this is none of my business, and I'm only telling you this, because I hope for your sake that you return to your old self sometime soon again. Please feel free to remove this post after you read it. It's only addressed to you, and I will be happy to see it being removed. ---Sluzzelin 06:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have to run and make it brief. For the record, I completely disagree with your characterization of this editor, whose edits are a clear asset to the reference desk in my mind. Believe me, I am sensitive to antisemitism, and my own radar frequently registers at the reference desk, but not with regards to this editor's answers. You mustn't forget these are online personalities we're dealing with, I have no clue who these people are, I have no clue who you are. I don't see you as a monster, and I'm sure you're no monster in real life, but we all have monsters in ourselves, and the internet is precisely where they like to come out and play. I think it's time you call them in for supper now. I don't know whether you're an obsessive person, and it doesn't matter. I read the pattern of posts at the reference desk as obsessive. There's really no way for anyone to see "the real you" here. What to do? My advice: either stay away from this user, ignore this user entirely, until you can see things in perspective. Or, if you can't keep your monster locked up, take a reference-desk break until you can see things in perspective, I did remove your post on my talk page, not because you're not welcome there, but ... well, you know why. ---Sluzzelin

Without wishing to sound patronizing or holier-than-thou, but probably managing to do so anyway, I would like to express my appreciation for the tone you chose in your last comments at the humanities reference desk. Thanks. ---Sluzzelin 23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't apologize for your comments as being "holier-than-thou" or anything. I truly appreciate the fact that your previous comments were not meant to chastise me, but rather to help me improve myself. You seem to believe in me, and that warms my heart greatly.

I'm assuming you're referring to the "National Socialist" post. Well life is a learning experience and I never intend to stop learning.

I expressed to you before my sincere concern regarding Clio's tendency towards "Nazi Apologism". This last post had me more concerned than ever. "Bitterness and discontent inevitably leads to National Socialism"? "The Russian Nation suffered more at the hands of the Nazis than any other during WWII"? Reading between the lines I couldn't help but feel truly disturbed by those remarks, yet again. Yet I took your advice, and responded in as cool a fashion as possible.

I'm just wondering though Sluzzelin. You spoke of your "radar". Has it at all changed? Have these last bizzarre remarks gotten you the least bit suspicious? Perhaps not. Perhaps I'm just a paranoid Jew. Believe me, I've been accused of much worse!

Thanks again for your comment. Please keep in touch. I appreciate your perspective.

Lewis

Loomis 23:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding apologism, revisionism etc., let's just say that, though I take it personally to an extent, I can accept that history is read and re-read, written and re-written, personalized, de-personalized - fresh views are interesting to me. I can also accept that there will invariably be reductionists and relativists on both "sides", and that can be one cause of offense. I think this is a case of a simplification causing offense.

To be specific, the word "inevitably" certainly wasn't accurate in that sentence, but, as you know, correlating the relative economic or subjective plight of the native mob/plebs/hoi-polloi with authoritarian, xenophobic political movements is nothing new in socio-political analysis. Simplifications abound: Reducing the Third Reich to some unique satanic glitch in the course of humanity or whatever other populist versions of history we encounter every day wont characterize it either.

As for your reply at the desk, I wont speculate on reasons why there are virtually no fascist (for want of a better word) organizations in the history of African Americans and Jews, but I think the user's intended meaning was more something along the line of: "Bitterness and discontent (among the native, usually white and Christian political majority) may be a hot bed for (not "inevitably leads to") National Socialism. This can't apply to political minorities (not necessarily identical with minorities by population) precisely because they are in the minority and represent one of the main targets of these movements. Of course you can see this as a generous interpretation on my part, but regardless of how I read the sentence: No, I don't feel anything, and certainly not the disgust I sometimes feel when people are bashing minorities at the reference desk (sometimes out of pure ignorance, which doesn't make it any better). Regarding antisemitism, apart from the usual trolls, my main frustration are the Middle East debates. But let's not go there. Let's not, lol. ---Sluzzelin 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the calm rationality of your response. Regarding the central issue, that being racism, or more particularly anti-semitism, my sensititivies tend to be rather different than most. Most good people tend to be rightly disgusted by the most open, ugly and unabashed demonstrations of racism, such as a burning cross on the front lawn of the house of a Black family, a Swastika spray-painted on a synagogue or a Jewish tombstone, or a characature depicting a Black as a baboon or a Jew as a horned develish creature. This is of course a healthy gut-reaction. Yet, though you may find my position on this to be quite bizarre, I really see this ultimately resulting in some good. In fact, and you may actually find this reaction as TRULY bizarre, any time I see a Swastika spray-painted on my local synagogue, I actually react with an odd sense of pride and satisfaction, knowing that these incidents only serve to remind those who'd rather sweep the whole ugly thing under the rug as being a disgusting relic of history, that racism is alive and well, and must be continually dealt with on a day to day basis.

For example, I have relatives with serial numbers tatooed on their forearms. Now these tatoos can be easily removed, yet these relatives refuse to remove them, instead they wear them with pride. Odd sort of pride, eh?

I know you REALLY didn't want to get into a Middle East debate, and I'm not bringing the subject up to get into any further debate on it. In fact I won't even mention one word concerning any argument pertaining to the situation. All I'd like to say are a few words concerning my attitude towards my Arab cousins. They're just that. My cousins. Whatever state of violence that may exist between my people and our Arab cousins, I place very little blame on the Arabs as a people. To me they're but unfortunate pawns in this whole mess.

Those who truly disgust me and who I truly blame are those non-Arabs, especially those (usually left-leaning) anti-semitic pseudo-intellectual Westerners who so subtly and so surreptitiously feed my Arab cousins with every possible false moral pretense to hate Jews and Israel. The way I see it, this kind of subtle and disingenuous moral support is the largest source of the problem.

I hope you forgive me for bringing up the Middle East. But as promised, I made no direct reference to any specifics. I only brought it up to illustrate my point. Simply put, it's my view that a subtle, surreptitious act of racism or anti-semitism can cause more harm than a hundred burning crosses, a hundred spray-painted Swastikas, and yes, even a hundred suicide bombers.

But Sluzzelin, as bizarre and outlandish you may consider my views, I hope that at the very least, they can give you some better insight the motives for my perhaps bizarre and outlandish views and PAST (lol) behaviour. Call me a dirty Jew (not you specifically, but generally) and I'll surely laugh. However make assertions like "Bitterness and discontent inevitably leads to National Socialism" and my blood boils. Loomis 16:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

lol, no need to apologize for commenting on a topic I brought up first. Facing the symptoms of racism in real life is a whole other deal, and we could swap gigabytes of stories, for sure.

I try to keep my political opinions to myself here, in general, but especially at the reference desk. Don't want anything to slip in between my lines either. I stay away from loaded questions on the Middle East. I just wanted to signalize, to you, that I'm sensitive to antisemitism. But most likely I'll continue shutting up and keeping my thoughts to myself. ---Sluzzelin 23:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

(Gosh, this is one long thread, dominated by my posts. And here I was poking at your lengthy elaborations.) I caught this commentat WP:RD/H. I know you're teasing, but still: I probably shouldn't be stating my opinions on the quality of comic book literature either, but I guess I'm not as careful here as I am with political opinions. Also, I'm not trying to be mysterious, I'm just a burned paranoid child and would like to keep my real-life and online activities completely separate. User:Sluzzelin is mine and I shall design it however I choose, whether there's any symbolic meaning behind "all those black balls, with one conspicuous green ball" or not :P. ---Sluzzelin 00:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh relax Sluz (may I call you Sluz?) it was just a joke! Be as mysterious as you please. All I know, and all I really care is that you seem to be a really decent guy/(girl?). I suppose I have the opposite tendency. I wear my heart on my sleave here, and I'm revealing about pretty much everything about me except for my family name and my street address! I should probably hold back a bit more like you do...but no...wait...I like it this way! This is my style and I'm proud of it!

In any case, I definitely agree with you when it comes to expressing opinions concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The whole issue gets WAY too much attention and press as it is, considering how relatively few people are actually involved. There are so many other conflicts and crises in the world that involve so many more people, yet get virtually no attention. For example, Sri Lanka, with about double the population of all Israelis and Palestinians combined, has been in a state of bloody civil war since 1983. Almost 25 years of violence, claiming the lives of some 65,000! Yet how many average Joe's even realize that there even exists a country called Sri Lanka, let alone aware of the blood that continues to be shed on a daily basis in that so little known poor island nation? In fact, you've inspired me. Don't be surprised if I bring this point up in some future discussion! Loomis 01:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm afraid relaxing is a talent I'm not too familiar with. Yeah, Sluzz is fine, anything but Bob, really. Go on doing your thang, that's how it's supposed to be, WP should reflect the diversity of madness, and not everyone here should behave in the exact same "Stepford" way, ugh. (I will remove your address if you're ever crazy enough to post it though). ---Sluzzelin 02:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey Loomis!

Just dropped to say How ya doin??? I am alright myself. My college and the course is taking its toll on me, and I am afraid I just dont have enough time to wiki anymore.. :( .. But I'll logging in now and then to check my msgs and answer a few RD questions if can (the really simple ones I mean ;-) Anyways... hope you are doing great! And hope everything you planned is coming along really good. Drop in a line whenever you can. Take care! Cheers! See ya! :-) Jayant,18 Years, India • contribs 14:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoring deleted content

Why did you restore the content that had been removed for being off-topic? It's still off-topic now, so it still doesn't belong on the ref desk talk page. Friday (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Barringa

Is there a diff to illustrate the posting you complained of on my talk page? That would help me to determine if action is indicated against Barringa. I had only noticed your apparent baiting of a different user. Thanks! Edison 06:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• You posted to my user page the following exchange: Your removal had the effect of answering the question in the affirmative. i.e., that the true God of the Jews is money - but delete it so as to hide this fact from everyone. You need to restore the question and comments so that users can see that this is not the case. To avoid confirmation that your intent for the conclusion to the question is to be this understanding please restore the question and comments and state the above there. -- Barringa 21:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The question should be restored. Loomis 03:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want the question to be on the Reference Desk, I do not understand why you are badgering me to scold the original poster Barringa for placing it on the Reference Desk. Scold yourself and allow us to get on with answering serious requests for information. The Reference Desk is not intended to be a soapbox or a debating forum over which middle east religion or ethnicity is the best and most rightious. Such a question is inappropriate, which is why it was appropriately removed. Regards. Edison 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For egregious violations of WP:NPA a solution is to go th Arbcom. But be aware that all actions by all parties are subject to review, and sometimes the result is the smiting of al who have transgressed. I have not heard of "reprimands"as a remedy, only blocking. 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Edison

True God of the Jews

You're going to have to work on your facetiousness. Dial up the sarcasm, otherwise a casual reader will take it the wrong way. Clarityfiend 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editors

Please do not tell anonymous editors that their comments are irrelevant and illegitimate. Friday (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Loomis why?

my non-removal

Loomis - I am the user "83.100.158.13". I didn't remove your question at all. I pointed out to the person who did remove it that it had been put back - and that it probably didn't matter.

If you read/reed the top of Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Humanities#Why are the Crusades Viewed so Negatively? you will see that it was another user who deleted it.. I've copied that part over so that it is clear:

I removed[2] this question from the H desk. Soapboxing, designed to start a debate rather than seeking references, etc.—eric 03:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=107734977&oldid=107734730] this question from the H desk. Soapboxing, designed to start a debate rather than seeking references, etc.—[[User:EricR|eric]] 03:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why no-one else has pointed this out to you I have no idea.

I pointed it out on the reference desk talk page, 83.100. ---Sluzzelin 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

my view on crusades etc

I personally think that both the term "crusade" and the muslim 'equivalent' "jihad" (both are religiously sanctioned wars) both have acquired negative connertations - so I thought the premise of your question was a little shaky.

my mistake

However I did say I thought that you 'soapboxed a bit' that was my opinion and probarly wrong to say. It was not intended to be offensive to you.87.102.11.134 17:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries 87. In the confusion it seemed that you were the one who removed my question. Aparently I misread the post, and I apologize for that. I also apologize for the harsh words. Though it may seem so at times, I really don't at all enjoy fostering animosity or getting into fights. I also greatly appreciate the fact that you took the time to clarify all this. I truly hope that we can put this misunderstanding behind us and I look forward to a friendly, civil realationship between us here at wiki in the future. All the best. Loomis 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally

So we see, then, that the tendency for 'Jewish' affinity toward 'money' simply did not exist where it has not been influenced by these medieval laws (i.e. in Europe, before these were enacted; or for Jews living in the more tolerate Ottoman empire). Thus, there is no inherent relation between Judaism and 'money' —this is what Marx meant when he distinguished between the "Sabbath Jew" and the "Jew whose God is money"— and this is where half-baked symbolisms fail. It is nonesensical to assign mystical attribute to the concrete developments behind the economic history of the (European) Jews, since any such would-be 'answers' invariably follow from the whims of preexisting prejudice. בברכה, El_C 13:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

on February 17 you wrote...

Failing to recognize the significance on February 17 you wrote:

“...As I've mentioned before, the story speaks of a Golden Calf being created and worshipped, and then, upon seeing it, Moses, with the help of God of course, gave the Israelites a choice: Worship the Golden Calf (representing idolatry, materialism, money etc.) or worship God. Those who chose the calf were swallowed up by the earth (along with the calf). Those who chose God were left to survive and go on to being the ancestors of today's Jews. I can't imagine a better illustration of the fact that Judaism is about worshipping God, not money. Loomis 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)”

And then came Jesus Christ to likewise give the Israelites a choice to follow Him or to be irrevocably condemned for eternity. (swallowed up by the Earth forever) including their descendents to the last generation including you Loomis and all others here now claiming to be a Jew no different than in Moses time when those who returned to Idolatry were condemned for all time. -- Barringa 17:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cucumbers etc

Hi Lewis. Hope you're doing well. OK, about the cucumber thing. I guess it comes down to a question of definition, and then, whose definition? Ask any cook and they'll insist it's a vegetable. Ask a biologist and they may well say it's a fruit. As far as the cook is concerned, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ... it's a duck. They're not remotely interested in what biologists might have to say on the matter, and even if the biologist produced incontrovertible scientific proof that a cucumber belongs to the class of things called fruit and not to the class of things called vegetables, the cook would still call it a salad vegetable. Cooks have their own informal definitions, which are no less valid than the definitions used by scientists merely because they are not subjected to reproducible experimentation or written up in peer-reviewed journals. So, for some purposes, the cucumber is a fruit, but for other purposes it's considered a vegetable. I guess we can all live with that. What does the scientist do when he/she comes home at night and looks in the cookbook for a nice salad recipe? Do they refuse to add a cucumber to the salad on the basis that it's not scientifically considered a vegetable? Of course not. Well, some might, I suppose, but they'd be the really nutty professors. However, there are some things that are not amenable to semantics. Does the Sun revolve around the Earth? The answer can only be yes or no. Scientists and the Churches once thought the answer was yes, and those who thought differently were very harshly dealt with. Remember Galileo and eppur si muove? The Catholics have only in the last 20 years finally absolved Galileo of guilt for that gross heresy. That's by the by; even learned Catholics knew centuries ago the answer was no. But whilever yes was the only acceptable answer, it was a "fact" that the Sun revolved around the Earth. We now know this was never the truth. But that illustrates what I mean by "fact": something that is generally believed to be true. It's not necessarily actually true. We might say that it is no longer a fact that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but it used to be a fact (note, not just considered a fact, but a fact without qualification) - whereas it was never true that the Sun revolves around the Earth. I've got to log off now, so I'll get back to you on the Wittgenstein thing later. Cheers JackofOz 05:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A reminder about civility

About this edit—do remember that the civility policy applies when interacting with editors retired or on break from Wikipedia.

Namecalling ("cowardice", etc.) is never appropriate. Smug goading is unbecoming, and will result in a block if you do it again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Would you consider amending it? Anchoress 04:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. Thanks for reconsidering your words. Anchoress 17:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 3 hours for removing comments – not your own – from another editor's talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have lifted what's left of your block, as you've explained it was an inadvertent error made in trying to remove an incivil remark of your own. Do take care. If you'd like to withdraw a comment in the future, it's often less confusing too add a remark to that effect – with or without striking through your original comment – rather than to simply erase a thread. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked! Finally!

File:Resilient-silver.png		The Resilient Barnstar
		message Loomis 05:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I award myself the barnstar of resilience, as an expression of my pride in myself for finally getting blocked! It's about time I got blocked (if only for about an hour) for sticking up for my principles! Yes I made a mistake and I fully admit to it. I sunk to the level of my adversaries. Yet the whole experience had made me all the more dedicated to sticking around, 'till kingdom come if necessary, to improving Wikipedia by finally fixing a few problems that I feel are sorely needed of attention. I realize that it's highly unorthodox to award oneself a barnstar, yet I intend to do so only at times when, though perhaps deserving a reprimand, justice is meted out unfairly and unequally, and I get singled out to be blocked while others' far more loathesome behaviour goes unnoticed. Loomis 05:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh?, Loomis, your block was lifted since your "Deletion of talk page comments was unintentional; due to technical error". If you insist on doing this, at least make it for an authentic block, and what principles are we talking about here anyway, that mistaken deletions should be tolerated? David D. (Talk) 05:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel it's a bit too early to answer. I made a request that a certain problem be attended to, but I realize that admins have their own lives, so I won't rush to judgement. Give it a few days and I'll be pleased to give you a full answer. Loomis 06:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you're correct. The direct reason for my being blocked had nothing to do with a matter of principle but rather, was due to a misunderstanding. Yet I would have never wound up in that position had I not acted upon principle, principles involving the unjust and arbitrary enforcement of wiki's rules of civility. But now that I think about it, why the hell do I have to justify what I do on my own talk page? After all, it's my talk page and I can express myself in whatever bizarre fashion I please. Who are you to give me directions as to how to express myself here?

I'm just wondering, though, how'd you end up here anyway? People generally go to talk pages when they have something to say. What did you come here to say? Obviously nothing to do with the barnstar thing, as the only way you could have discovered it would be after coming for another reason. Is it simply that you enjoy visiting my talk page just to browse? If so I'm flattered! Apparently my talk page is a rather fascinating and entertaining place! Loomis 14:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think i have your talk page on my watch list due to ref desk interactions. My first post here was to do with Cleo. After I wrote my note above i realise it sounds like I'm saying you should go after a legitimate block. But don't do that ;) I did find the self award of a barnstar amusing enough to warrant a comment but please don't take it as stalking. David D. (Talk) 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, if there's 'far more loathesome' behaviour out there, it would be handy if you summarized the evidence and provided a synopsis and diffs. Or...you can continue to obliquely impugn the fairness and competence of admins who have (legitimately) criticized your own behaviour. To follow up on your email, I can't imagine why I would want to do all the legwork for you when you're still throwing around 'arbitrary and unjust' labels. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm truly at a loss. You seem to be implying that I'm sending you on some wild goose chase, to go through the entire wikipedia database without giving you the slightest hint of what I'm talking about. Quite the contrary. I directed you to a SPECIFIC discussion on a SPECIFIC page, and asked for your take it on. In case you missed it, once again, the page I'm referring to is the RefDesk talk page, and the discussion I'm referring you to is the discussion entitled "Not a soapbox". Doesn't seem much legwork to me. A couple of clicks and you're there. I don't understand your unrelenting hostility either. I keep sending you the most polite of emails praising you on your conscientiousness as an admin, and you only reply with hostility. Why?

In any case, it's all irrelevant now, so you needn't even make those two or three clicks requested. I've taken it on myself to do the right thing, eat crow, and, at least on my part, end the whole problem here under the discussion entitled "Mea Maxima Culpa". It would have been nice, though, if you would have at least acknowledged my polite requests by doing me this small favour and checking out this very specified dicussion rather than continually reacting with undue hostility. But as I said, I've taken care of it, so I really don't care anymore. So basically it's up to you whether you even care to check out what I'm talking about, or just continue to ignore my small, polite request and go about getting your jollies blocking as many users as your heart desires. Who knows, this post itself may even consist of something you find "objectionable" and warrant yet another block. I really couldn't care less. I know within myself that I did the right thing, acted like the bigger man, and gave Clio my unconditional and unqualified apologies. I had hoped that she'd respond likewise for her hurtful statements towards me, but I suppose my hopes were unrealistic. Knowing that I have the strength of character to do the right thing and apologize for MY innapropriate behaviour is really all that matters to me. The rest is bullshit. Loomis 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I reached two conclusions. First, you seem to have buried the hatchet with Clio the Muse, so there didn't seem a need to go over old ground. Second, I'm not compelled to investigate every problem that comes across my talk pages, nor am I likely to go out of my way for you, given your ridiculous and sarcastic self-awarded barnstar above.

I've now looked at the bloody talk page. I note that the behaviour of several participants, including and especially you, was both incivil and immature. I also note that activity on that thread ceased the better part of two weeks ago. We generally don't hand out blocks for behaviour that old, unless it appears to be part of an ongoing pattern of misconduct. If you're seeking speedy intervention in the future, take the giant chip off your shoulder and post a polite request on WP:AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd hoped for a better, more neutral response from you, but apparently you too have your own biases. Even if my remarks in that in exchange were indeed "especially" incivil and immature (which is an absolutely ridiculous proposition, I'd say), I'd at least expect you to give me the slightest bit of credit for the rather magnanimous step I took in apoligizing to Clio. But no such luck.

I think you may be mistaken in your assertion that Clio and myslef have "buried the hatchet". I may have "buried the hatchet" with her through my unqualified, unconditional apology, only to get a lukewarm "ok-I'll-accept-your-apology-but-you're-still-wrong-and-I'm-still-right-so-please-continue-to-stay-away-from-me" response. The "hatchet" is only half buried at this point.

As for having a giant chip on my shoulder, how, in God's name, can describe me in such a way, after taking such an extremely magnaminous step in offering such an apology? One would only hope for praise for taking such a bold, magnanimous step, rather than yet further insults as to immaturity. My apology was indeed the most mature thing I've ever seen on wikipedia. Shame on you for giving me absolutely no credit for it. You're certainly a rather poor admin afterall. Block me again if you wish, if you feel I've insulted you. I'll just award myself another resilience barnstar for it. Loomis 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, I've always tried to support you in as positive a way as I know how. I have to say, though, that I tend to agree with some of Ten's sentiments. I saw your apology to Clio, and I thought it was a step in the right direction. Now, I'm not so sure. If it were truly unconditional, there would be be no requirement for her to accept it if she did not feel so minded. You seem to still have an issue with her for daring to wish not to have contact with you. Surely that is her right. And surely that is just as valid as your previous vow never to have anything to do with her, ever. If I'd been involved in such a vitriolic relationship with another user as you and Clio seem to have had, I'd be very wary of continuing to deal with them in the future. Accepting an apology for past transgressions does not automatically mean becoming best of friends. It's a good thing to forgive, but it's also prudent to have a "once-bitten-twice-shy" policy for the future, at least until things return to equilibrium. An apology is but the first step in a process of healing, it's not the last step. What the other party does in response to an apology is out of your hands. If you truly wish to build bridges with Clio, you're best advised to stop denigrating her. JackofOz 04:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am amused by your description of your actions and apology as 'extremely magnanimous' given that you were obviously hoping and expecting I would take administrative action against Clio (based on your emailed requests before, and your posts here afterward). In any case, I can definitely agree with Clio about one thing—it would be best if we avoided each other, for both our sakes. You can't see the problems with your attitude, and I'm obviously not the messenger to deliver that information.

Have a pleasant day. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I give up, Jack. Seriously. Why is it that at every turn, each and every attempt I make at setting things right is met only with the extremest of cynicism? Even a mea culpa is looked upon as nothing but a disingenuous ruse to "get-back" at Clio. For the record, my continuous attempts to draw some attention to the "Not a soapbox" discussion was not in any way a request to get the admins to give Clio any sort of warning. I'm done with her. Honestly. I couldn't care less if she was declared and coronated "Queen of the RefDesk". Rather, all I meant by it all is to try to point out that I'm not the bad guy you all appear to be painting me as. All I'm interested in is a small dose of recognition for my efforts, a little peace, a little fairness, and some sort of acknowledgment that there are two sides to this whole ugly episode. Though I keep on admitting to MY wrongdoing, it just frustrates the hell out of me that no one is willing to recognize that my poor behaviour was but half the story. But I realize that'll never happen. Jack, your criticisms have always been wise, constructive, and well intended, including your most recent one above. As such I'll take it as seriously as any of your others, and try my very best to act upon it. Still, even this post will no doubt be viewed with extreme cynicism, just as everything else I do seems to be. Ten, with all due respect, I'm not interested in any sort of response from you, as it'll most likely be yet another cynical assessment of this very post I'm writing right now, and as such it'll just frustrate the hell out of me once again, causing me to once again lose my temper and proceed with yet another innapropriate and incivil attack on God-knows-who this time. Jack always seems to provide soothing guidance, and his feedback is always welcome.

Right now I'm at a complete loss as to further prove to whoever may be reading this that I'm not the bad guy you all think me of, and that once again, all I'm interested in is a small dose of recognition for my efforts, and just a little peace. Perhaps self-flagellation should be my next step. Anyone got a cat-o-nine-tails or some similar appropriate device handy? Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. Loomis 16:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

i don't think you're bad guy, never have. But i stand by my original comment. Sometimes you just have to walk away for your own health. How long has this being going on now? Walking away is a sign of strength and a sign of maturity. You will get much respect for such an action. It's a win win and let others fight your battles, it helps your longevity as an editor, it's also essential for your sanity. David D. (Talk) 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally! Some constructive criticism and advice for a change! Thanks David, your words are very sensible, very relieving and very much appreciated. All I can promise is to do my best in following it. Loomis 17:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, I've made this point before, but maybe it needs restating. This has NOTHING to do with whether you're a "bad guy" or not, and even less with whether anyone thinks you're a "bad guy" or not. Nobody here knows you personally, so that would never be our call. But even if we did know you personally, it would still not be our call. Any Wikipedian's personal opinion of you as an individual - whatever it may be, and however it may change from time to time - is utterly irrelevant to anything on Wikipedia. Stop judging yourself or anybody else as either "good", "bad" or anything else. It's not up to you to make such judgments of others. If you want to paint yourself as either a "bad guy" or a "good guy", that's your thing - but I'd counsel you strongly against that, as it is ultimately self-defeating. Get completely away from who you are, or who you think you are, and concentrate on the substance of the debates we have here. It's not personal. Don't make it personal. Don't become a victim to anyone else who makes it personal. The Ref desk isn't a popularity contest, or a place to make new friends. That's not say you can't make some friends here, and I'd like to think I'm in that category. Next time I'm in Canada, I'd definitely like to meet you, and vice-versa next time you're down under - but all that is incidental to why we're here in the first place. Get it? Happy to chat on email or wherever, any time. Cheers JackofOz 12:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jack, I'd love to meet you too. Australia is definitely very high on my list of places I'd like to travel to. I believe I've told you of my adorable little wog in Sydney that I'm simply dying to spend some time with, after all these years. Do you still have a close friend with relatives in Toronto? If so, and if you're willing to travel from Toronto to Montreal, nothing would better please me than having a pint and a sure-to-be fascinating conversation with you, along with providing you a tour of what is by far the most beautiful city in the world ;-) Not to mention that Montreal is renowned for the fact that for whatever reason, our city's women are the most beautiful in the world. It's true actually. Tourists from relatively nearby cities like Boston or New York or Toronto never cease to ask me: "What's the deal with your women? Why are they all so gorgeous?" There's actually a legend pertaining to the filles du roi that attempts to explain it, but it's probably mere legend. And of course I realize this particular aspect may not exactly be your...how shall I put it..."cup of tea", yet beauty is beauty, it need not be sexually motivated to be appreciated. For example, I can appreciate the beauty of a handsome man, when I come across one. Though I may not have even the slightest bit of sexual attraction towards him, I'd still without hesitation comment to my friends: "Wow! That's a handsome man!"

I know I've told you this, and I'm sure you already know it too, but it bears repeating: like Australia, Canada is a massive country. Montreal isn't a mere hop-skip-and-a-jump away from Toronto. It's almost a day's drive. Think of it like Melbourne vs. Sidney. And if you're considering visiting Vancouver for whatever reason, think Perth!

Oh and please refer to me as Lewis, even on the RefDesk. I'm starting to find this whole "Loomis" pseudonym a bit silly, and I'm considering changing it to my actual name. I'm just concerned that no one would realize that "Lewis=Loomis"...yet coming to think of it, perhaps that would be a good thing!

In any case, I'm sorry for not adressing the substance of your post. Rest assured though, that I read it and appreciated it. I guess I'm just in too good a mood to bother analyzing that "dark side" of me that leads me to such inappropriate behaviour. I suppose, perhaps, some things are better left forgotten than over-analyzed. I'm happy with the way things are now, I said my peace, I've finally found the peace of mind I've been searching for for the last little while, and with that in mind, the rest is nonsense.

Yet, despite the fact that my following choice of words will likely annoy you, I'll say them anyway: You're definitely "a good guy" Jack!

Lewis

Loomis 12:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Harrumph!  :) JackofOz 10:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments to me

I've replied on my talkpage. Anchoress 17:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fluorescent lighting and the comments on my talk page

Hi, Loomis. I was wondering why you didn´t reply to my comments on my talkpage. If you think there´s anything wrong with them, you can tell me. A.Z. 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Hey!

I know you have your history with Cleo, which is why you usually refrain from commenting where she has done so. So maybe imagine that what she wrote was written by someone else. Cleo said "...: in Austria they came all at once, a combination of official policy and an outburst of years of built-up resentment and hatred by the local Nazi movement" (my emphasis), and you replied with comments that assumed this was about the treaty of Versaille causing a build-up of resentment in Germany which justified Nazism. :-S Can you see why your response seems a little odd? She is actually contrasting the build-up of resentment leading to a sudden outburst in Austria, with the situation in Germany. The 'build-up of resentment' does not refer to Germany. So how on Earth could this be about the Treaty of Versaille's negative effects on Germany?

Anyway, off to bed. Hope to see your illuminating and interesting (seriously, no sarcasm) posts tomorrow. Skittle 00:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you really find my posts to be illuminating and interesting? If so I'm not only flattered, but the flattery couldn't come at a better time, given the whole ruckus and onslaught of critisms of my behaviour regarding you-know-who. :) (I think it's best not to even refer to the editor in question by name, as that may too be considered a "personal attack").

With regards to the post, of course everybody's human and makes mistakes, or is interpreted wrongly. If it were the first time, I would have said nothing. However this particular editor, from my POV, tends to display a cleverly subtle, yet consistent tendency towards Nazi apologism. This is definitely not the first time. On at least three, or perhaps four other occasions s/he's (ok, who'm I kidding! It's a she!) displayed the same attitude, which I find extremely offensive. I'm only going from memory here, but two particular instances come to mind, and forgive me for being inexact in my recollection, but from what I recall I've heard statements such as: "National Socialism is a natural reaction to repression". To that one I flew into a fit! (Which I realize now is not the best reaction!) I responded with something like "The Jews and the Blacks have been repressed for centuries, if not millenia, far more than a mere decade of economic chaos, yet neither group felt the need to turn to National Socialism". And then there were the two or three comments about the Vichy Regime as being "totally legitimate" (omitting the historical fact that they willingly collaborated with the Nazis).

So that's my story. Take it as you will. If you still think I'm just a paranoid, yet "illuminating and interesting" Jew, I'll still take it as a compliment. I'm glad that there's at least one side to me that others admire!

Sleep well, Skittle.

Lewis

Loomis 12:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying a government is "legitimate" is different from expressing approval of its policies. For instance, Saddam Hussein's regime was the legitimate government of Iraq until a few years ago, despite the atrocities it committed. For that matter, Hitler's regime was the legitimate government of Germany as of 1934. I have no opinion as to whether the Vichy regime was legitimate, but you are mistaken if you think it is anti-Semitic to assert that Vichy was a legitimate government. I was totally baffled by your suggestion that this edit constitutes a rationalization of the Holocaust. A statement that somebody is motivated by resentment and hatred is the exact opposite of a rationalization! --Mathew5000 13:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, though I disagree, you make a valid point. As I said, had this been a once-off blunder, I'd certainly look the other way and forget the whole thing. After all, when it comes to blunders, I should be the last one to judge! But how about the whole "National Socialism is a natural reaction to repression" statement? What's your take on that?

Loomis 14:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis

I would want to see that statement in its full context. --Mathew5000 14:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very reasonable request. It was a few months ago, and I'll try to look around a bit to find it, but I don't want to make this whole thing my life's work. I'm past it all, and I feel no real need to prove anything. I'd rather forget the whole sorry thing, as well as the editor. That post of mine wasn't intended to lead to yet another pointless escalation of conflict. I just felt compelled to quietly and politely voice my objection (as I intend to continue doing in the future should I find something objectionable) and nothing more, except to offer an invitation to anyone who may have misunderstood me to come here if they needed further clarification. To be clear though, and to be fair to the editor in question, my statement wasn't meant to accuse her in any way of sympathizing with or even rationalizing Nazism, rather, my objection was based on what I would call, her consistent "Nazi Apologism", i.e. what I find to be the completely unacceptable attitude that "Well, of course what the Nazis did was wrong, but you have to keep in mind that at that period the German people were going through a rough time, and..." whatever. I have absolutely no tolerance for Nazi Apologism. Pardon my language, as I generally make it a rule not to use profanities, but frankly, when it comes to understanding the rise of the Third Reich, I couldn't give a flying fuck about "German resentment".

Yes, I'll try to look around for the statement in question, not to prove anything about the editor, but rather to prove that I'm not just making this all up to slander her. (Or should I say libel? With the internet and all, it's hard to say for sure which one would apply!) Loomis 19:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Here we go! It took a lot less time to find than I'd imagined:

"Nazism has taken shape around the oddest of paradoxes, Robin: a movement that was essentially inward looking and violently nationalist has transcended both race and nation. Where there is bitterness and discontent, there is National Socialism."

(Nope! Some of us are a bit better at dealing with our "bitterness and discontent" than resorting to Nazism! By this logic, after over half a century of nonsensical agression and terrorism by her neighbours, by now Israel would surely turn to National Socialism! The Knesset and its cabinet would hold a sort of Wannsee Conference of of their own, and resolve to solve the "Palestinian Question" by rounding them all up, throwing them into gas chambers, then cooking them. Problem solved!)

"Putting the common hatred of all things Jewish to one side, the issue of race, and even the concept of Aryanism, has become largely irrelevant. Of all the European nations none suffered more greatly at the hands of the Nazis than Russia;"

(Huh? I seem to recall that the Jews suffered a bit too. But surely, I must be mistaken. After all, I'm but a mere McGill educated Canadian lawyer and MBA, nothing close to a Cambridge educated history Phd!)

"and yet there is now a vigorous and violent Hitlerite movement in that country. There is no reason why the Japanese Nazis should have any connection with other Nazi movements, though I feel sure that they would co-operate and ally with one another, if they felt this to be necessary. Clio the Muse 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)"

Well, I really don't know what to make of that last part. I plead ignorance as to this particular issue. I have absolutely no knowledge concerning Japanese Nazis.

But again, I should make it clear: I DO NOT WISH THIS TO RESULT INTO YET ANOTHER POINTLESS ESCALATION OF CONFLICT. I'm done with that! I'm over it! I really don't care anymore! I reproduced the above post only because I was asked to do so, and as I mentioned, only to prove that I wasn't "making it all up". I really couldn't care less whether or not this post was convincing as to my position. Take it as you wish. Loomis 21:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I could understand taking offence at an argument along the lines of "the Nazis were provoked into committing the Holocaust" but I don't read the statements above as making that argument or anything close to it. Nor would I characterize the statements you quoted above as "Nazi apologism". On that point let's agree to disagree since I don't want to get into a debate with you over how to interpret something that another editor wrote. But I do want to ask your views on the more general point of how we should think about the Holocaust, and the Third Reich, today. You said above that when it comes to understanding the Third Reich, you don't care about German resentment. So what do you think caused the rise of the Third Reich? Or do you find that question irrelevant/indeterminable/unimportant/inappropriate? --Mathew5000 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Of the above, I'd choose the word "irrelevant". There is absolute no "excuse" for Nazism. Loomis 23:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you equate examining the "cause" of something with finding an "excuse" for it? Certainly the Nazi regime was evil. I agree with you that there is no excuse for what they did. But examining how such an evil regime came into power can be valuable -- not only for pure academic reasons, but in order to prevent such a regime from gaining power in future. --Mathew5000 00:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm no psychiatrist. As such I'm entirely unqualified to figure out why such evil came to be. If one is truly curious as to why the German people sunk to such an unprecidented level of sadism and inhumanity, only the psyhchiatrists, not the lawyers, and neither the historians are qualified to even attempt to answer such a question. As for me, as I said, I'm no psychiatrist, and as such I'm completely unqualified to explain the pathology that was the Third Reich.

I think the why question is entirely a legitimate one for historians, lawyers, social analysts, ethnologists, theologians, philosophers, artists, sociologists, humanists, teachers, ordinary men and women ... and psychiatrists. JackofOz 10:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I half-agree with you, Jack. I suppose that I'm entitled to offer what would at best should be described an educated guess. Yet by no means should this educated guess be considered authoritative, it's just that, an educated guess. And rethinking the matter, even the psychiatrists probably couldn't do all that much better. Inexplicable evil is just that: inexplicable.

And Mathew, for some reason I missed the fact that you made a very good point about the importance of trying to understand how Nazism came to be, as you're indeed right that in trying to understand just why such evil came to be, is our best bet to make sure it never happens again. When I said I wasn't qualified to answer the why question, suppose I was too narrowly focusing only on analyzing the mindset of Hitler and the Nazis. To that, as I've said, getting into the minds of madmen is far beyond my capabilities. Only the psychiatrists are trained to even try to understand madness, and as such, that's why I deferred to them in my original response.

Yet now I realize that there was a second component to your question, one that I overlooked, that being "What can the rest of us sane people (or in my case, partially sane:) learn from the rise of the Third Reich to present it from ever happening again. In fact, perhaps you've hit the nail right on the head there, in finally explaining to me why I'm so disturbed by the attitudes of some on the RefDesk, not only about Nazism, but even many contemporary issues that may explain my rather right-of-centre POV. To me, the following is my "educated guess" as to why such evil was allowed to go unprevented, and why even to this day so much evil is going unprevented:

Perhaps I'll begin with a few quotes of Edmund Burke, a man whose wisdom has never ceased to inspire me:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Generally, but probably wrongly attributed directly to Burke (Though rather consistent with his general views, and likely a paraphrase of another of his quotes)

"There is, however, a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue."

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick [sic] to be the most anxious for its welfare."

"Early and provident fear is the mother of safety."

"Whoever undertakes to set himself [or herself!] up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

"Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security."

"Never despair; but if you do, work on in despair."

"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."

Beside Burke, it be almost criminal of me not to move on to yet another man of the most profound of wisdom and foresight, the very man whose ideas were ignored until it was too late - Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill:

"Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war."

"If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.

"We are waiting for the long-promised invasion. So are the fishes."

"We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire... Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job."

"Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense."

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

"You will make all kinds of mistakes; but as long as you are generous and true and also fierce you cannot hurt the world or even seriously distress her."

Describing the theme of his work, "The Gathering Storm", and basically summing up his answer as to why the Third Reich managed to succeed in all its evils, he offers the following as his take on the whole thing: - "How the English-speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm"

On p.85 of the work, Churchill notes ""In 1933, the students of the Oxford Union, under the insipiration of a Mr. Joad, passed their ever-shameful resolution "That this House refuses to fight for King and country." It was easy to laugh off such an episode in England, but in Germany, in Russia, in Italy, in Japan, the idea of a decadent, degenerate Britain took deep root and swayed many calculations."

Indeed, on p. 168 of the work we re-encounter the resolution. Churchill notes that at the 1935 Stresa Conference: "Mussolini, like Hitler, regarded Britannia as a frightened, flabby old woman, who at the worst would only bluster and was, anyhow incapable of making war. Lord Lloyd, who was on friendly terms with him [Mussolini], noted how he had been struck by the Joad Resolution of the Oxford undergraduates in 1933 refusing "to fight for king and country."

I offered the above list of quotations to give you an idea as my particular "educated guess" as to why it happened, as well as a basic understand of what makes me tick. In short, it was our fault. We let it happen, because we simply refused to accept reality. Madmen and their followings have always existed, continue to exist, and (though I hope that one day the psychiatrists will finally figure the whole thing out,) will, for at least the foreseable future, continue to exist, and strive for power to accomplish their sick ends. But as I said, there's nothing we can really do to about that. But that's not to say we can't prevent these things from happening again. All we have to do is open our eyes, aned take action when action is necessary, even pre-emptively if necessary. Hitler opened our eyes, but I fear our eyes are beginning to shut once again. Call it what you will, but consistently downplaying and "explaining away" Nazism with such statements as "Where there is bitterness and discontent, there is National Socialism." Are definitely, the way I see it, the worst possible of approaches to take if you're truly dedicated to ensuring that it indeed never happens again. I'm absolutely sorry, but from my POV, no statements as to bitterness and discontent, hyperinflation, economic chaos etc... should even be mentioned in the same breath as National Socialism.

As for pacisfism, peace movements, peace protests and the like, by all means, I'm a pacifist. If I could only snap my fingers and in doing so eradicate forever all war and violence in the world I'd surely do it. Yet when it comes to "peace protests", as well intentioned as they may be, when faced with the choice whether to join in, I always think twice, thinking back to that terribly misguided "Joad Resolution". Loomis 22:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, Lewis. One point, though. Your position is that Hitler was "a madman". You seem to be in no doubt about that. Yet, isn't it also your position that it's the psychiatrists who are uniquely equipped to make such judgments? If you start with that premise, then wherever you go from that point is dependent on it. I'm not arguing he was sane, but I wonder at the value of making such a call when nobody has access to him anymore in order to assess his mental state. We can certainly have strong opinions about his works, and do whatever we can to ensure they're not repeated. That requires a certain degree of understanding of him, what made him tick, what drove him to such shocking outcomes, and why the German people were apparently powerless to prevent him. Whether he was mad or not is not, imo, really the point anymore. JackofOz 02:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JackofOz's comments there. In addition, I was surprised to see you discuss the sanity of Hitler after making the point that there is no excuse for Nazism. In most modern legal systems, insanity is an excuse for wrongdoing. I would argue (not that I am an expert) that the actions of the Third Reich are attributable to evilness, not illness. --Mathew5000 02:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You both make good points. I just feel you may be distracting yourselves from my central point, by focusing on how to characterize Hitler and the Nazis. You're right, maybe he wasn't mad. Maybe he was just evil. Or maybe a combination of the two. I really don't know, yet whatever the case may be, it's all besides my point. My point is that while the whole thing may have been Hitler and the Nazis' doing, it is us who failed. We're the ones most responsible for letting it happen. We fell asleep at the wheel. If we're going to prevent it from happening again, I think our focus should not be on understanding the "evil" people of the world, as the world will always have its share of "evil people". Rather, we have to look to ourselves to remain vigilant, to never again drop the ball, to never again fall asleep at the wheel. To me, that's our surest protection against a recurrence of such evil. Loomis 13:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A note of caution

Loomis, if you don't want to drive another pointless escalation of conflict, please refrain from accusing Clio of being a Nazi apologist. You have been – deliberately or otherwise – interpreting her words in the least flattering and most offensive way possible (and frankly, stretching that interpretation beyond the breaking point). If you can't stand by your stated plan to bury the hatchet and steer clear of Clio, you will be blocked. If your immediate impression of any of Clio's remarks is that they are Nazi apologia, let someone else point it out, or ask politely for clarification. Save your indignation for legitimate targets.

A note to anyone else reading this—the quote that Loomis has dissected above is drawn from this thread.

The more recent remark by Clio here, which prompted Loomis' original intemperate response, here, which was removed as inappropriate by EricR here. A note for the record that Clio doesn't appear to be an anti-Semite or a Nazi apologist: [3]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A note of caution to Ten

Ten, I hold true to my opinion. I refrained from making any "public" accusation on the RefDesk, yet merely politely objected to a statement that deeply offended me. I wish no further discussion of this issue, as it's been dealt with to my satisfaction. Nonetheless, should similar offending statements be made, I'll likewise politely state my objection. Should that lead to any sort of permanent block, so be it. Loomis 23:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please bear in mind in the future that there are no 'private' versus 'public' areas on this site. The requirement to avoid personal attacks applies equally everywhere on Wikipedia. Also note for the future that describing someone as a Nazi apologist is almost never a 'polite' statement of objection.

I am concerned that you're letting your personal conflict with Clio colour your interpretation of her remarks. Be aware that getting blocked for insulting someone who condemns Nazism in a slightly different way than you do wouldn't be noble martyrdom—it would be shooting yourself in the foot.

I guess we're clear where we stand. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a few more things. I hope that at the very least you recognize the fact that I'm putting a great deal of effort into muzzling myself. I had hoped that the way I dealt with the whole thing this time was acceptable, or at the very least seen as an improvement.

Apparently even this manner of voicing my objection (a perhaps stern yet very politely worded voice of objection on the RefDesk, attacking the post, not the poster, followed only by an invitation to those requiring further clarification to come to my talk page) is still considered unacceptable.

Therefore, in the future, though hopefully it will never happen again, should I feel offended once again, I'll simply state the two words "I object", and refuse to talk about the matter further, no matter how curious others may be as to just why I'm objecting. Would that be acceptable?

I should also say that I disagree with your characterization that the editor in question "condemns Nazism in a slightly different way than you". I don't see it that way at all. But I'll leave it at that. Nonetheless, if you're at all curious as to why genuinely find these types of remarks so disturbing, I just recently had a rather enlightening conversation with Sluzzelin about the whole thing here:[4].

You also say that you see it all as a case of me "letting [my] personal conflict with Clio colour [my] interpretation of her remarks". For some reason, so many others see it that way as well. It's truly bizarre that no one seems to consider the possibility that in reality, they've got it backwards. The only reason any personal conflict ever arose in the first place was because I began to see something terribly wrong in her remarks. The remarks caused the conflict, not the other way around. Indeed, for the first few weeks I was rather enamoured by Clio and her apparent wealth of knowledge. Over time, though, something began to seem terribly wrong. The posts started to appear a bit "too" perfect. So all I did was check out a few of her "so-called" facts, only to find that more often than not, they were absolutely false. I really didn't know what to make of it. Tensions increased, and, well, the rest is history.

I should also point out that a false accusation is of course, most definitely wrong. Wiki's WP:NPA guideline in fact quite nicely mirrors such RL crimes as libel/slander. Yet on the other side of the coin, there is ALWAYS one universally accepted defense to the criminal charge of libel/slander: Truth.

Take that most incompetent of anti-semites we recently came across, that clumsy, bumbling, extremely inarticulate, bigot/troll known as "Baringa". Now upon coming across Baringa, I very quickly "personally attacked" him as a despicable anti-semite. Why was that particular personal attack not considered as any sort of WP:NPA violation? Why did I not get one peep of disaproval from anybody whatsoever? I clearly "personally attacked" the guy! I suppose the reason that not a soul objected to my "personal attack" upon him was because like the crimes of libel/slander, breaches of the WP:NPA guidelines are as well subject to the defense of truth. It was obvious to all that Baringa was an antisemite, and therefore, despite the fact that falsely accusing someone as being an anti-semite is wrong, if the guy actually is an antisemite, as Baringa clearly was, not at all inapropriate.

But to be clear, I'm in no accusing Clio of being an antisemite, rather, I strongly object and I'm deeply offended by the way she tends to colour history in a light that suits her own POV, and then present that particular painting of history as the completely objective NPOV Gospel truth as spoken by a Cambridge doctoral candidate in history. POV is one thing, I'm contantly stating my POV, yet I always try my best to make it clear that what I'm saying is merely my POV. It's rather simple actually. All that's required is to preface a post with a few simple tentative words, such as "I may be wrong, but the way I see it..." or "This is just my take on the issue, but...". On the other hand, to take a clearly POV statement and very ably dress it up as a completely NPOV "statement of fact" by "a Cambridge educated doctoral candidate", is, to me, very wrong, very unethical, and worst of all, very misleading to many who happen to be reading it.

I also feel that I should apologize for the harsh tone I took in responding to your last post. Yet I think I should point out that coming across a post that's headed in large bold letters A NOTE OF CAUTION isn't exactly the most effective way to atempt to convince many others to read your post carefully and give it the consideration it deserves. You always have some good points, yet your manner in conveying them tends to be rather demeaning, to be honest, and as such no matter how valid your points may be, I don't take well to being demeaned, I'm too insulted to take what you say seriously, and at times I react with a similarly disprespectful manner. Such as my response this time, headed up by the same large bold letters: A NOTE OF CAUTION TO TEN. As I'm sure you've noticed, Jack's "stern yet caring" approach always gets me thinking, and more often than not encourages me to improve myself. Therefore, may I humbly suggest, in the future, a bit more "carrot" and a bit less "stick"?

Take care

Loomis 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah um, better git it in your soul

Hey Loomis. I thought about your suggestion of discussion fora, and looked around a bit, but I couldn't find any place on WP where it wouldn't be met by criticism and the machete. A test run still might be interesting though. What if you combed through articles on topics close to your knowledge and sensitivity, and tried smoothening out some of the wrinkles? You might get all the debate you want lol. It also suddenly dawned on me: some of your basic political anger brings up associations with the more recent writings by André Glucksmann. Have you ever read him? Particularly The Discourse of Hate might be interesting to you. Most of his major works exist in English, but I saw that you read French as well (Incidentally, Mikheil Saakashvili claims to have absorbed most of his French from reading Glucksmann). I'm sure you can get versions in both languages where you live. This is my recommendation of the month. :-) Anyway, have a nice one. (Oh, and the title of this post refers to another outraged man, an artist whose work I love almost as much as he sometimes hated the world) ---Sluzzelin talk 13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and humans

Hello. I don´t really know what is happening between you and Clio the Muse and other editors, but I just saw a suggestion for you to leave Wikipedia because you have few useful contributions. Besides the fact that this is a lame argument, the truth is All your contributions that I have seen so far were really interesting. I hope you never accept those kinds of suggestions.

Even though I may have psychological instabilities and once in a while let them appear on Wikipedia in the most inappropriate places (which I am sorry for), I think you feel my contributions are in general interesting as well.

My last post on my talk page was by no means meant to be offensive. It is just the rational conclusion at which I arrived after thinking for some time about what you said. If you find out it is wrong, a well presented argument should change my mind as well. A.Z. 17:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Useful contributions

Replying here in order to not clutter up the ref desk talk page. My opinions on the usefulness of your contributions have nothing to do with you making personal attacks- they have to do with the type of thing you're doing right here. To me this looks like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. This sort of contribution is not useful. Also, a comment on the quality of your contributions is not personal- personal would be if I were commenting on you as a person, not talking about your edits. Wikipedia is not for flame wars. Friday (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This must be a joke. You can't possibly be serious. Is this an April fool's joke? It's still March 26th, a bit too early for that. Are actually trying to tell me that a sweeping comment saying that my contributions are next to worthless and that I should probably move on is in no way a personal attack? This is beyond absurdity.

And to think this all came about due to a comment of mine that did not even mention the other contributor's name, just attacked the post? This is just too funny. Friday, you your posts are clearly the most hypocritical person posts I've ever encountered. Loomis 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, when we talk about whether or not someone has useful contributions, it's generally in the context of considering a community ban. If an editor has problematic behavior but also does valuable work, many editors will go to great lengths to work with them to help them understand what the problem is and get them to change their approach. If, on the other hand, an editor has problematic behavior with little or no useful contributions, the case for simply banning them becomes much stronger. This type of scrutiny rarely if ever happens unless there's a pattern of recurring disruptive behavior. Friday (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you!

"I am always deeply suspicious of historians who allow their craft to be tailored to meeting the needs of a particular political movement. That is not to say that historians should not have political commitments: they are all to [sic] human, after all. However, proper historical understanding has to transcend the imperatives of both ideology and nation. It is, I think, sad for Canada, sad for any country, when historians become little better than political ciphers; but it is even sadder for them."

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. I couldn't have said it better myself. Perhaps all this fuss wasn't in vain and was a learning experience for all. This isn't sarcasm. I'm truly impressed by these words, and all the more hopeful. I truly thank the author. Loomis 00:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So...

...now that you've got this and this and this out of your system, I expect that you'll be a paragon of courtesy and civility from here on it, yes?

This is a final warning. I will issue escalating blocks if you persist in attempting to game the rules to let you make attacks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you. Listen very carefully. I was attacked by Friday. Do you not agree? I was insulted. I was told that my contributions are worthless, and that I should probably leave. Very insulting remarks, no? Serious violation of WP:NPA, no? Yet apparently, once again, the WP:NPA except upon Loomis policy seems to be at work once again. I never make gratuitous attacks. Neither were the posts you mentioned above "gratuitous". In fact they weren't meant as attacks at all. They were meant to drive home a point. The point being that despite constant personal attacks against me, not ONCE has anyone ever issued any sort of warning. None ONE admin has ever even attempted to communicate to the other party "look, what you said about Loomis there wasn't so nice, I suggest you stop".

I'd love to be that paragon of courtesy and civility you speak of, and if I'm no longer personally attacked, or if I am, but someone issues a warning to the other party, of course there'll be no need for me to take matters into my own hands. Yet if I'm attacked once again, and still nobody takes any action, I'll once again be forced to take matters into my own hands. You surely can't expect me to just stand by and let myself be attacked and insulted without some sort of action being taken.

Hopefully, no one will attack me anymore and go without warning. If that's the case, I'll certainly be that paragon of courtesy and civility you speak of. Loomis 13:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Friday has been warned by the Arbitration Committee to stop telling people to leave Wikipedia, but continues to do so. This was one of the reasons for the recall petition. Do you have a link to the specific edit where Friday suggested that you leave ? I'd like to take a look. StuRat 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you go, Stu.[5] Loomis 02:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, with all due respect, you are the one who still doesn’t understand. I told you on my talkpage a week ago: Wikipedia is manifestly unfair, and there’s still no cheese down that hole!

Wikipedia is a grossly fickle enterprise, and one commits their emotions to it or anywhere in or near it at their peril. It’s administratively fickle, it’s editorially fickle, and it’s personally fickle. People who at any point expect the Wikipedia community to provide them with justice, understanding, kindness, or support will end up being disappointed. And the more emotional investment there is, the greater the disappointment.

IMO the only thing it is safe to give Wikipedia is good-faith edits and actions intended to improve the encyclopedia. Anything else; passion, intimacy, joy, etc etc etc, is too risky. Not to put too fine a point on it (and at the risk of sounding bitter, which I’m not), but anything else the community will gobble up, chew thoroughly, and spit back in your face (eventually). Actually, that includes many good-faith edits and actions intended to improve the encyclopedia; but if that’s all you’ve given them, getting hit with it won’t hurt that much. If you’ve invested your finer, deeper emotions, it will hurt worse.

This is not a community you can count on. I think you’re a fool to try. I strongly urge you to put yourself under a talkpage ban for a month. Don’t read or post to talk pages, just focus on project and article pages. Read/edit the RD only if you can truly trust yourself not to get roped in. Get back to contributing constructively (as the majority of the time and effort you put into Wikipedia), and after the month is up, see if that is enough for you. If you find you need something more, I suggest you don’t seek it here. Anchoress 21:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the wise advice, Anchoress. The only problem is that you just contradicted yourself. You tell me it's a lost cause to expect understanding and sensibility at Wikipedia. Yet your above post is proof that it exists. :) Seriously, I know what you mean. If you've noticed, I've pretty much taken a break from the RefDesk, so I guess I'm sort of following your advice already. There just seem to be a few loose ends here to be tied. That's all. Besides you, I've met several other understanding people here, and I thoroughly enjoy interacting with them. I suppose you're right, yet you say that actions intended to improve the place are safe. That's all I was trying to do. Just some fact checking to improve on wiki's reliability. But of course one thing led to another and, well, here I am. Just curious, by saying "Get back to contributing constructively (as the majority of the time and effort you put into Wikipedia)", were you actually telling me that I indeed do contribute constructively? If so that's kind of you to say. I'll definitely take your suggestion seriously. Besides, I could use the time off to pursue my only other passion aside from viciously attacking innocent wiki contributors for absolutely no reason. That other passion of course being the being the torturing of puppies and kittens. :) Seriously, thanks Anchoress. Loomis 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No probs as per usual, and thanks for letting me butt in. As for your question, I have no evidence that your contributions aren't constructive. ;-)) Anchoress 08:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My 2p worth (not that anyone asked for it!): commenting on a user's contributions (rather than on them personally) is usually ok as long as it's worded in a civil way - except, if you're commenting on ALL of their contributions, then you are in effect commenting on them, rather than their contributions, and so this could be classed as a personal attack. Cheers! --Rebroad 23:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why I removed your response from the RD

Loomis, in answer to your question, i removed your response because it provided no value to the reference desk, and was merely a transparent attempt to continue this ongoing campaign of yours to malign another editor.

I have little hope that you will accept this explanation, a number of editors have tried, with a great deal of patience, to explain to you how this continued feuding on your part has been inappropriate—and asked you to please stop. You have responded negatively, have been unable or unwilling to accept any criticism, to objectively evaluate your own actions, or to moderate your behavior. Before rejecting my explanation though, consider the following:

1. You have tried to paint another editor as dishonest, as attempting to deliberately insert false material, as excusing terrorism, and lately a Nazi apologist. These are harmful accusations.
2. Many have pointed out that these accusations are untrue, how you have taken words out of context, been mistaken in your assumptions or deliberately misrepresented statements.
3. There have been a number of such incidents over a period of some months, on the reference desk, the associated talk page, your own talk page, and those of other editors.
4. Your response to criticism of these actions has been to lash out at other editors, to post incoherent diatribes, to post non-apologies that are mostly continuing accusations, and to protest that you will finally stop the feud, yet seek out any and every opportunity to continue it.

In light of the above: transparent attempt to continue an ongoing campaign to malign; is fully justified.—eric 18:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Should I take it that nothing I say will be met with anything but cynicism? Why on Earth would I just pick one contributor out of the blue to attack? Do you truly believe that I derived some sort of sick pleasure from the whole thing? Do you truly believe that I was just pretending when I expressed my offense at that contributor's post? If you do, why don't you scroll up a bit and take a look at the civil discussion I'm having with Jack and Matthew about that particular topic.

If I'm merely dedicated to maligning this particular editor's character, how do you explain my last couple of posts concerning her? I believe I referred to her as "extremely intelligent" and "gifted". I also commended her for a rather "wise" observation concerning historians just recently on the RefDesk. She suggested we move on, and I agreed. Despite my extreme clumsiness at going about it, do you not see even the slightest bit of sincerity during the course of this whole ugly episode?

If not, let me try to sum it up. I'm sure you remember Baringa, that bumbling idiot of an anti-semite going on and on about some incomprehensible "golden calf" theory and how it somehow proves that money is the true god of the Jews? Well he was a laughingstock and everybody knew it from day one. He was too funny to be taken seriously, and so he wasn't. Now, of course Clio isn't an anti-semite, or at least it's very unlikely. The difference is that as I said, she's apparently extremely intelligent and articulate, and as such commands a great deal of authority through her words. Indeed, she has the makings of a great leader, be it as an expert historian or whatever it is she decides to go about doing. Yet with these abilities comes great responsibility. And I sincerely felt that she was acting extremely carelessly in that regard. I can repeat the whole list of careless remarks made by her, but we've been through that already, and I don't want to go through it all, as I sincerely would like to move on. I should say this though, I'll only bring up one quote of hers, perhaps the most disturbing of all: "Where there is bitterness and discontent, there is National Socialism". Though she likely didn't mean it, what she did right there was send an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS MESSAGE.

I should just like to add, that contrary to your belief, I did indeed prove certain of her remarks to be false, to the satisfaction of many editors.

As you said of me, I have little hope that you will accept my explanation. Please don't respond, as it's obvious that you've already made your mind up about me, that there isn't so much of one iota of sincerity in anything I say. Reading this right now you're probably just rolling your eyes and looking at this very post as yet another one of Loomis' incoherent diatribes. I suppose there's nothing I can do about that.

We seem to have FINALLY come to an understanding of sorts. As I'm sure you've noticed, it's been quite some time since I challenged a single word of hers, or uttered a single disparaging remark. This is because I'm finally coming to see some very encouraging progress. For the first time ever, she's actually come back to clarify her point on the RefDesk talk page, which is extremely encouraging. Also, her remarks to the effect that historans are only human and have their biases just like the rest of us is extremely encouraging as well, as for once, I finally see some long awaited for humility and introspection.

I just hope that nobody feels that I'm claiming some sort of "victory" of any sort. I'm not. I've said it repeatedly, this isn't about ego. I haven't "won" anything. I truly believe that this is indeed the end of this whole ugly episode.

Loomis 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

It was really good to know you, Lewis! If you ever do leave Wikipedia, I hope we somehow keep in touch. I too don't know yet if the right thing to do is to leave Wikipedia or keep trying to improve it...

After you return from your Wikibreak, you may wish to join Wikiversity like I and StuRat already did. They have a nice Help Desk there, still very small, with very few editors, few questions and answers. It seems, however, much more welcoming than the Reference Desks here. I didn't start to edit there yet, but I hope to start soon.

Bye!

Your friend Artur. A.Z. 23:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you remove this on purpose?

Did you remove these comments on purpose? Friday (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I did. The topic of the discussion was how best to deal with personal attacks and incivility in an effort to improve the RefDesk. I removed the post because it was completely irrelevant to the discussion. Am I not allowed to delete inapropriate posts? Lewis 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. What you've done is called disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and we heavily discourage this. It's not really a case of being allowed or disallowed, but if this is the result of you using your best judgment, it's probably a good idea for you not to remove posts for this reason in the future. If it's really off-topic and should be removed, someone else will come along and do it. Friday (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)